Month: November 2024

Authored by Daniel Lipinski via RealClearPolitics,

Here we go again. Voters have elected Donald Trump president while giving Republicans majorities in the House and Senate. And once again, Democrats are asking themselves, “What do we do now?” When this occurred eight years ago, I was a Democrat serving in the House of Representatives. At that time, some of my colleagues who had seen many traditional Democrats in their district vote for Trump spoke out. They said that working-class voters were tired of feeling looked down upon by Democrats because of policies they supported, what they believed, or even who they were. So when Hillary Clinton was caught claiming that half of Trump’s supporters were a “basket of deplorables: racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” she was seen to be confirming this, helping to doom her campaign.

But instead of changing course, Democrats doubled down by embracing a more ardent progressivism and demanding that everyone follow. Primary challenges by progressives rose dramatically. My experience was emblematic. Working-class voters were my base because I focused on bread-and-butter issues critical to struggling families, and I was not supportive of progressive social issues. After surviving in 2018, I lost in 2020 to a progressive challenger bankrolled by millions from national groups. At the same time, candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 were stumbling over each other, trying to get further to the left on a variety of issues. Decriminalizing illegal border crossings, funding sex-change operations for prisoners and detained illegal immigrants, and defunding the police became party dogma, further alienating the working class.

Thanks to bumbling by President Trump and congressional Republicans, however, Democrats won the House in 2018 and captured the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2020.  Progressives felt vindicated and were emboldened to continue their agenda with a self-righteous swagger. President Biden, whose victory was made possible by a reputation he had built over five decades as a moderate deal-maker, foolishly embraced progressives to prepare to run for reelection in 2024. Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who won in a state that gave Clinton and Biden less than 30% of the vote, was hounded out of the party by progressives who should have been thankful for every vote he gave them.

In 2024, Republicans handed a massive in-kind gift to their opponents when they nominated the man most responsible for the Democratic Party’s election victories the past six years. Democrats were also given a unique opportunity to install a nominee who did not have to pander to progressives to win primaries. Perhaps the party had no other choice but Vice President Kamala Harris, who had taken some very progressive positions when running for the nomination in 2019. But with five long years having passed, she could have tried to make a clean and hard break from these. Instead, she chose to walk away from some of these positions softly, never seizing the opportunity to claim that a new working-class friendly perspective led her to change. Harris sealed her fate when she delivered a too-clever-by-half professorial response – “I’ll follow the law” – when asked whether she still supported taxpayer-funded sex-change operations for prisoners and detained illegal aliens. Donald Trump went on to become just the second Republican in 36 years to win the popular vote, thanks in part to significant support from non-white working-class voters, particularly Hispanics. 

As Democrats try to figure out what to do next, it is folly to believe that all the party needs is “clarity of message,” as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) recently claimed. And while it is good to propose new policies directed at helping those left behind economically, as Rep. Ro Khanna (CA) did, it won’t solve the political problem. But buried in that post-election piece by Khanna was one sentence that gets much closer to what Democrats must do: “For our economic message to be heard, we must show common sense on issues of crime and the safety of families and not shame or cancel those who may have honest disagreements with us on a particular social issue.” Rep. Seth Moulton (MA) expressed a similar sentiment when he said, “We lost, in part, because we shame and belittle too many opinions held by too many voters, and that needs to stop.” 

While these are hopeful signs, Democrats must do more than pay lip service to change. After all, a few years ago, Khanna – who is now positioning for a presidential run – was publicly urging our Democratic House colleagues to cancel me from Congress because of honest issue disagreements. And last week, when Moulton dared to give a specific example of not wanting his daughters “getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete,” he was lambasted by multiple Democratic officials, including his state’s governor and one of his congressional colleagues. Nowhere did I see any Democrat have the courage to support Moulton’s commonsense concern or even defend him for being willing to raise an issue with significant public resonance.

Voters are not fools, especially working-class voters who continue to feel that the country is going in the wrong direction and that they always get the short end of the stick. They may not watch day-to-day politics closely, but they understand who and what the Democratic Party now seems to really value. Only time will tell if the party has finally learned a lesson.

Daniel Lipinski is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He represented the Third District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2005 to 2021.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

It’s been a wild ride. After years of near total leftist control of every significant social and governmental institution in the US and abroad the American people have said enough is enough. The progressives have once again been slapped with the ultimate lesson of our era – Get Woke, Go Broke. This time they’re not just broke; they’re broken.

I don’t think I’ve seen such an electoral bloodbath in my lifetime (maybe the Reagan landslide in 1984, but I was only a child). The conservatives control the Oval Office, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court. Regardless of what you might think of Trump, what’s important is that he ran his campaign on anti-woke and anti-globalism and the US population voted for that agenda en masse.

The American people want an end to the madness of the leftist/globalist regime. They want an end to establishment corruption. They want an end to US involvement in foreign conflicts. They want the woke indoctrination of their children to stop. They want an end to open borders. They want an end to perpetual debt spending and inflation. And, they want reassurance that events like the attempted covid coup against our constitutional liberties will never happen again.

Over the past several months I have been predicting a Trump election win based on the clear sociopolitical shift in popular sentiment. However, my concern has always been that Trump will not make good on his campaign promises, either because he is being thwarted by Neo-Cons within his own team or because he did not intend to follow through in the first place. We all saw what happened after 2016 – The status quo was mostly maintained.

To be fair, in 2016 Trump’s team was mostly chosen for him and that team was comprised of many snakes in the grass. This time around I have a bit more optimism. Trump’s coalition is significantly better than his first term and many of the people involved seem to be dedicated to their particular cause. If this is the case and Trump really means to change things for the better, I have a few ideas on how he can ensure that America never again deviates into the path of globalism.

Some of these actions have already been promoted by the Trump Administration in recent days, some of them have not. Obviously none of these changes are easy but they can be done with the proper enthusiasm and pressure from the American people applied to their representatives in the Senate and Congress. Here’s what we can do as a country to keep our society free and prosperous well into the future.

1) Recess Appointments For Cabinet

The first time Trump tried to appoint his cabinet the amount of Senate interference that took place caused delays of almost 4 months, and that was with appointees that represented no threat to the status quo. This time around it is clear that Neo-Cons within the Senate will work with Democrats to outright reject choices like RFK Jr and Matt Gaetz. They WILL try to sabotage any nominee that presents a legitimate threat to the establishment order.

With this is mind, and per the Constitution, Trump has the option to call a recess of the Senate and make his appointments while they are away and without their approval. There is also a little known rule that allows him to force Congress to adjourn. Candidates for the Senate majority leader position all agreed to support recess appointments before they were voted on, which means there should not be any interference to a call of recess from Trump. Multiple presidents have used this emergency option to fill their cabinets.

2) Federal Voter ID Law

It’s seems like a no-brainer. Every state (except one) that the Democrats won in the 2024 election was a state with no voter ID laws. That’s not a coincidence. Correlation is not always causation, but it’s highly suspicious none-the-less. Many developed nations around the world have strict ID laws when it comes to elections. Why do we not have them in the US?

With the advent of electronic ballots and large scale mail in ballots, a voter ID requirement is more important than ever to prevent election fraud. One of Trump’s top concerns after entering office in 2025 is to pass a federal voter ID requirement for all future elections. This cannot be left to flounder for years, it must be done by 2026.

3) Total Border Control And Mass Deportation – The Details

One of the key agendas of globalism is the forced establishment of open borders in the western world, along with mass migrations of third-world aliens cor cultural saturation and replacement. The goal is to destroy the west from within and then replace it with am economically Marxist and morally ambiguous civilization. Stopping this scheme will require aggressively enforced border laws and deportation laws. This requires multiple steps…

Immediately Establish Texas-Style Border Controls

Despite constant interference from the Biden Administration, the state of Texas and governor Greg Abbott have been incredibly effective in stopping illegal border crossings using expanded patrols and razor wire barriers. Encounters with illegals on the Texas border have dropped by 86% through Operation Lone Star in the span of a year. That’s impressive. Texas methods should be used across the entire border.

Increased Fines Against Companies Hiring Illegal Immigrants

This is a strategy being used by some European nations and it makes sense; a lot of illegals jump the border because they know there’s under the table jobs waiting for them. Trump must make it financially untenable for companies to hire migrants without proper work visas, and greatly increasing fines is the best way to do this.

100% Tariffs On Mexico Until They Secure Their Own Borders

The Mexican government is absolutely corrupt and often uses the US border as a pressure valve to get rid of their poor and their criminals. Instead of fixing the problems within their own country they export those problems to America. This needs to stop.

End All Asylum Requests From Third World Countries

Until the immigration problem is solved the asylum loophole needs to be closed. Save for a few citizens from countries where very real asylum protections are needed (like oppressed dissidents from China or North Korea), there’s no need to take in most of these people and their asylum claims are fraudulent.

Increase Efficiency Of Immigrant Worker Visa Program

Democrats often argue that America cannot survive without migrant workers. I say this is a lie designed to prevent legitimate immigration reform, but if there really is work that needs to be done in our country and migrants are somehow the only people that can do it, then we can have both.

If Trump streamlines the work visa program to speed up the process while vetting applicants, then we can have controlled borders AND migrant workers. To pay for increased efficiency of the program, double the application fee and reduce their legal work period in the US to 1 year or less.

Mass Deportations Of Illegals

This was a key plank of the Trump campaign and it looks like he plans to make it happen. Starting with ALL the migrants that entered the US illegally in the past four years and all those relocated through Biden’s shady visa program. This can be achieved by cutting off existing subsidies to migrants, fines for companies that hire illegals, citizenship verification for home buying or home rentals, ending federal subsidies to Democrat sanctuary cities, etc. Ultimately, most illegals will leave the country on their own.

4) Shut Down Globalist NGOs

Globalist NGOs are the primary source of corruption within the US government and our society at large. NGO’s have all the rights of individual citizens with none of the limitations. They can generate billions of dollars for influence campaigns. They can lobby politicians (bribe them) to get legislation put in place. They can use their incredible financial resources to fund activist movements and create civil unrest from thin air. And, they can even fund programs to control education and encourage mass illegal immigration.

NGOs should be banned from lobbying. And, any NGO’s caught engaging in the funding of woke propaganda in schools, violent activist groups or illegal immigration efforts should be immediately shut down. Some NGOs feed on government funding (like George Soros’ Open Society Foundation) while others are privately funded (like the Ford Foundation). If they are receiving subsidies, that money should be cut off. Stopping the operations of globalist NGOs is imperative to saving western civilization.

5) Immediate Peace Negotiations On Ukraine

Here’s the bottom line – Ukraine is losing the war against Russia. Their eastern front is collapsing due to attrition and in another year or less Russia WILL take the entire country. The war is also being managed by proxy by NATO. We are swiftly plunging into open conflict between the east and the west. This must stop. Even if the situation doesn’t go nuclear, a world war at this time would cause a catastrophic economic collapse, for the US, for Europe and most of the East. Only the globalists want this to happen.

Ukraine is an irrelevant territory not worth fighting over. Americans don’t want to fight over it. Europeans don’t want to fight over it and I doubt the average Russian wants to fight over it. Vladimir Zelensky must be forced to accept the loss of the Donbas to Russia. A DMZ must be established and the fighting must end for the sake of the world.

6) Investigate Covid Corruption

There should be an in-depth investigation into the Biden Administration’s handling of the Covid mandates, including the attempted censorship of information contrary to the government narrative. There should be a real investigation into the viral laboratories in Wuhan, China and Anthony Fauci’s involvement with those labs to develop coronaviruses using gain of function research. Americans want answers.

7) National Ban On CBDCs And The Cashless Economy

In tandem with open borders, globalists at the IMF and BIS have been quietly building a massive global central bank digital currency framework (CBDCs). The erasure of nationally controlled economies and currencies would be required in order to create a globally centralized economy with a single world currency. And, in order to force populations to accept such a system, the globalists need CBDCs.

With a cashless economy in place, elites within governments and central banks would have ultimate power to socially engineer public behavior. If they can take away your money any time they please, it’s much harder to rebel against them. If they can program caveats into CBDCs to prevent spending on certain goods (like meat or gas, for example) then they can pressure the populace into accepting carbon controls and other draconian measures. CBDCs are the end of freedom as we know it.

8) Economic Stop-Gap Plan

I have outlined options for preventing a total economic collapse in previous articles, so I won’t go in-depth here. I will quickly list some of the most important measures that could be taken to revitalize the struggling system. Many of them are designed to bypass the Federal Reserve.

• End The Income Tax For 99% Of The Population – Tax The 1%

• End Property Taxes On Single Family Homes – Only Tax Owners With Multiple Properties

• Remove All Illegal Immigrants From The US – This Will Trigger A Drop In Property Prices And Rent

• Create Subsidy Incentives For Married Couples With Children – Home Loans, Education

• Bring Back Technical Apprenticeship Programs – Increase Technical Workers Without College

• Use Tariffs, But Also Backstop Tariffs With Domestic Production – Focus On High Quality Goods

• Domestically Manufacture High Quality Goods With Long Life To Help Fight Inflation

• Issue A Gold/Silver Backed Treasury Bond – Offer Metals Backed Savings Accounts

• Institute A Moratorium On Debt Ceiling Increases Until Government Deficit Spending And Debt Are Under Control

There’s a lot of work that needs to be done to save the economy in the long run but the options above could help to boost the American worker and consumer and stall a breakdown. Currently, the US faces the highest national debt, the highest interest payments and the highest consumer debt in the nation’s history. We are also still in the middle of a stagflationary crisis. Something dramatic must be done soon, before it’s too late.

Bonus Policy: Institute A Mandatory IQ Test And Mental Acuity Test For All Political Candidates And Leaders

It’s hard to test a person for moral compass but you can at least test intelligence. A candidate should not be prevented from running for office because of low IQ, but I believe the public has a right to know who they’re voting for. If they decide they don’t want a low IQ leader, then that should be up to them.

By extension, independent mental acuity testing should be a regular occurrence. As we saw with Joe Biden, the establishment will happily hide the mental decline of a politician if it serves their interests. The people have a right to know.

No doubt hundreds of other policy ideas could be added to the list above, but these actions are a solid start.  If Trump instituted even half of these solutions the US could be saved from perhaps the worst existential crisis in the nation’s history and globalism would be on the ropes.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Of course, as goes NVDA, so goes the market, and after last night’s beat (but disappointing revenue forecast), the giantest of giant tech companies swung around like a penny stock, adding and subtracting $100s of billions in market cap in an instant…

Bear in mind that the vol market had pegged an 8% swing –  Jensen’s comments helped rescue the stock: “I believe that there will be no digestion until we modernize a trillion dollars with the data centers.”

Interestingly, while NVDA managed to hold on to gains, the Mega-Cap tech basket was hit hard and could not bounce back to green…

Source: Bloomberg

… as GOOGL was clubbed like a baby seal…

Source: Bloomberg

All the major indices ended the day green (though Nasdaq lagged), as Small Caps ripped…

…thanks to a huge short squeeze (again)…

Source: Bloomberg

On the macro side, it was ‘bad news’:  Philly Fed fell hard in November (from +10.3 to -5.5 vs +8.0 exp), Continuing Jobless claims topped 1.9mm Americans for the first time in three years (initial claims dropped), and the Leading Index dropped 0.4% (more than expected). Initial claims and existing home sales were positive to offset some of the negative but overall, the US Macro Surprise index actually rolled over…

Source: Bloomberg

Treasury yields were marginally higher on the day with the short-end lagging (2Y +3bps, 30Y +1bps). That pulled the short-end higher on the week, while the belly is outperforming on the week…

Source: Bloomberg

Rate-cut expectations continued to slide with less than three full 25bp cuts now priced-in by the end of 2025…

Source: Bloomberg

As bond yields rose, so did oil prices with WTI holding back above $70…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar rallied back up near post-election highs…

Source: Bloomberg

But, the big news of the day was in ‘alternate’ currencies with bitcoin continuing to charge higher (topping $99k) as Gensler announced his retirement and Trump’s crypto council takes shape…

Source: Bloomberg

…and Gold also soared back above its 50DMA…

Source: Bloomberg

…up for the 4th straight day after 6 straight down following the election…

Source: Bloomberg

And finally, Bitcoin finally took out its record high relative to gold…

Source: Bloomberg

Do you feel lucky?

Vail Resorts, the world’s largest ski resort operator—including Vail Mountain, Breckenridge, Park City Mountain, Whistler Blackcomb, Stowe, and 32 additional resorts across North America—has entered a seasonally favorable period for share price appreciation. Additionally, cooler and snowier weather trends are supporting resort openings as the ski season gets underway.

Let’s begin with the latest note from Barclays’ Brandt Montour, who provided clients with new details about the “US Ski Weather” at Vail’s resorts.

“Latest snow depth in key Western US resorts (in aggregate) is higher this year versus its historical average,” Montour said, adding, “Average temperatures have been colder than usual, with a greater number of days below freezing (<=32°F), in aggregate." 

The analyst said, “Early season snowfall in key western N.A. regions has generally been strong in November.” 

Meanwhile, Montour noted, “The East hasn’t received any snow yet this season, which isn’t surprising or atypical. However, these resorts opened in mid to late November last year, and we believe MTN is targeting similar opening dates for that region this year (tickets have been on sale at select East Coast resorts for as early as November 22).”

The latest projected openings of Vail Resorts.

Snowfall trends.

Weather models show cooling is in place across the Lower 48 through early December. This is one reason why NatGas prices have soared in recent sessions. 

Private weather forecast BAMWX stated on X, “On this note, I suspect the fail of La Niña is playing a major role in preventing the Eastern/SE ridge that has been so dominant to be prevalent. Stretched polar vortex also setting up in the right spot is a big key too. Fun pattern for Winter lovers approaching.”

On this note, I suspect the fail of La Niña is playing a major role in preventing the Eastern/SE ridge that has been so dominant to be prevalent.

Stretched polar vortex also setting up in the right spot is a big key too. Fun pattern for #Winter lovers approaching. https://t.co/XUWKsIzKH3

— BAM Weather (BAMWX) (@bamwxcom) November 21, 2024

“Confidence increasing of a VERY cold pattern developing to end November and start December. Both the EPS/GEFS is support of a widespread notably below normal pattern for much of the US. You won’t find a much better upper-level pattern with ridging near Greenland and the N. Pac,” BAMWX noted in a separate X post. 

Confidence increasing of a VERY cold pattern developing to end November and start December.

Both the EPS/GEFS is support of a widespread notably below normal pattern for much of the US.

You won’t find a much better upper-level pattern with ridging near Greenland and the N.… pic.twitter.com/uQ2iNN1PxG

— BAM Weather (BAMWX) (@bamwxcom) November 21, 2024

Plus, there are major snow threats across the Mid-Alantic and Northeast to the end of the week. 

Impact SNOW will fall today from Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana into West Virginia. Snow will fall tonight and tomorrow in western North Carolina, West Virginia, western Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York state and northwest New Jersey. These could be double digits plowable,… pic.twitter.com/jYw4hQqhrM

— Jim Cantore (@JimCantore) November 21, 2024

Favorable weather for Vail Resorts comes with shares trading at a four-year low…

Seasonally, shares generally appreciate in November.

Vail Resorts is a potential bottom watch if cooler trends hold. 

Authored by Jeff Carlson & Hans Mahncke via Truth Over News,

Last week we wrote about the central role Obama played in establishing the Russiagate Hoax. This week we’re going to take a closer look at why Obama was so involved. What drove him to push a hoax that had been ostensibly put into place by the Clinton campaign? 

Many are aware of Biden’s entanglements in Ukraine but most are unaware of Obama’s implicit involvement. For some time now it’s been our working theory that Russiagate originated, at least in part, as the result of what Joe Biden was doing in Ukraine – and as a result of Obama’s knowledge of Biden’s actions.

Recall that Biden’s involvement in Ukraine traces back to at least early 2014 when he was pulled into the U.S. overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically-held elections by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs in the Obama State Department.

In November 2013, Ukraine’s president Yanukovych turned down a U.S.-backed trade deal with the European Union in favor of an emergency bailout from Russia, a decision which was understandable from Ukraine’s perspective but one which Nuland and her state department colleagues found deeply upsetting.

When the European Union pursued a diplomatic route at resolving the impasse by proposing a power sharing agreement, Nuland was quick to veto the idea, telling Pyatt in a leaked phone call, “[expletive] the EU.” During that same call, Nuland discussed her plans for the ouster of Yanukovych and the installation of opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister.

Towards the end of their conversation, Nuland noted that Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan had informed her that “you need Biden,” and she concluded by telling Pyatt that “Biden’s willing.”

Biden was effectively appointed as the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine in February 2014. On Feb. 22, 2014, just as Nuland had planned, Yanukovych was removed as president of Ukraine and, three days later, Yatsenyuk, the candidate favored by Nuland, was installed as prime minister.

In other words, the U.S. government had effectively enabled a coup that ousted a democratically elected leader and replaced him with their own candidate. The US-led ouster of Yanukovich also had other internal repercussions, most notably the outbreak of an eight-year civil war between western Ukraine and the Russian-speaking Donbass region of Ukraine.

The idea that any of this could have been done without the direct approval from Obama, is of course, ridiculous.

One of the members of Yanukovych’s government who lost his position in government as a result of the coup was Mykola Zlochevsky, the Oligarch owner of Burisma Energy. He had first served as minister of ecology and natural resources and later as deputy secretary for economic and social security. During his tenure in government, Zlochevsky’s companies, particularly Burisma, reportedly received an unusually large number of permits to extract oil and gas.

In April 2014, UK prosecutors seized $23.5 million in assets owned by Zlochevsky that were held at a London bank, alleging that Zlochevsky had engaged in criminal conduct in Ukraine. It was at this same time that Burisma appointed Biden’s son, Hunter, and his close associate, Devin Archer to its board of directors.

On April 21, 2014, Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine, offering not only his political support, but also $50 million in aid for Ukraine’s shaky new government. During Joe’s Ukraine visit, on April 22, it was announced that Archer had suddenly joined the board of Burisma.

Hunter had also joined Burisma’s board that same month, but curiously Burisma didn’t announce Hunter’s appointment until May 12, 2014—after his father’s visit to Ukraine had concluded.

Many have portrayed Hunter’s involvement as little more than a means for the Biden family to extract hefty board fees from Burisma for association with the Biden name. While there is likely a large amount of truth to this, we also suspect something bigger may have been at play—the effective capture of Ukraine’s natural gas assets.

In a June 23, 2014 proposal from Boies Schiller, the law firm that employed Hunter, Burisma was provided with what Boies Schiller termed a “Strategic Outline for Legal Defense Plan.” Their proposal stated that they wanted to “Insulate Burisma from politically motivated disruptions in operations, including legal challenges to licenses, now and in the future.” 

The proposal from Boies Schiller was referring to the natural gas licenses that had been illegally accumulated by Zlochevsky during his time in the Ukrainian government.

As part of this strategy, Boies wanted to “Meet with the U.S. officials in Washington, DC who are leading U.S. policy related to Ukraine to brief them on who Burisma is, its significance to the future of Ukraine, and the Investigation in order to seek their advice and assistance.”

The proposal noted that “we are starting the process of creating an echo-chamber of U.S. officials discussing Burisma between and amongst themselves and encouraging each other to meet with Burisma.” Boies disclosed in their proposal that they had already spoken to a number of congressional members and their staff, including Senator Chris Murphy and his chief of staff.

Amos Hochstein, Obama’s U.S. Special Envoy for International Energy, was also mentioned in the Boies proposal – which focused on establishing a meeting between Hochstein and Burisma’s CFO Vadym Pozharskyi in the coming month of July 2014. It appears that meeting never happened – although Hochstein did meet with Burisma lobbyist David Leiter and Boies law partner Heather King. 

Meanwhile, efforts by Hunter continued. In a November 2014 email, Hunter told his long-time money-man Eric Schwerin to “Pls send D Amos’ contact info… Amos is ‘Acting Special Envoy, Bureau of energy Resources’ at State.”

What is clear from these documents is that Hunter and Archer were working to bring in high-level political support for Burisma from members of Congress and officials in the Obama administration at a time when it was very clear that Burisma was run by a corrupt Ukrainian Oligarch. And all of that support appeared to be centering around protecting the natural gas assets of Burisma.

We’ve written a number of times on Joe Biden’s efforts to get Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin removed so we won’t rehash that entire story here. But it’s worth noting that it may have been around the sequence of events leading to Shokin’s firing that Obama may have become alarmed.

The level of involvement from Obama officials would only accelerate in 2015 after the Bidens were further pulled into the legal entanglements of Burisma, which was under ongoing investigations into the theft of Ukraine’s natural gas assets. 

After receiving a new demand for help in ending the investigations into Burisma from Zlochevsky on November 2, 2015, Hunter immediately reached out to the previously-mentioned Hochstein. Hunter would meet in-person with Hochstein four days later, on November 6, 2015. Hochstein later reluctantly (and evasively) told congressional investigators that Hunter “wanted to know my views on Burisma and Zlochevsky.”

Hochstein, who was Obama’s U.S. Special Envoy for International Energy at the time, privately expressed his concerns about Hunter’s role at Burisma to Joe Biden in October 2015 and again during a flight to Ukraine on December 7, 2015. 

We’ve mentioned Hochstein a number of times for a reason. Hochstein had been appointed by Obama to “help Ukraine, and other European countries, find new supplies of natural gas after Russia invaded” Crimea in 2014. Hochstein “also worked on energy issues related to sanctions on Iran and Russia” and “worked closely with officials at the White House’s National Security Council and government agencies.”

Hochstein was Obama’s point man on the energy situation in Ukraine. If Hochstein knew everything the Biden’s were doing, so did Obama.

More proof of this comes from a series of meetings between prosecutors from Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and officials from Obama’s National Security Council, the FBI, the State Department, and the DOJ that took place in January 2016. The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington later “confirmed the Obama administration requested the meetings.”

Present at these January 2016 meetings was Andrii Telizhenko, then an employee at the Ukrainian embassy. According to Telizhenko, a recurring theme at these meetings was “how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united.” Additionally, Telizhenko was told that U.S. officials “had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions.”

The focus of US officials was almost certainly Trump’s future Campaign Manager Paul Manafort. We know that “Agents interviewed Manafort in 2014 about whether he received undeclared payments” and “whether he engaged in improper foreign lobbying in Ukraine.” 

According to Telizhenko “DOJ officials asked investigators from Ukraine’s NABU if they could help locate new evidence about the Party of Regions’ payments and its dealings with Americans.” Trump’s soon-to-be campaign manager, Paul Manafort, would later be implicated in the Party of Regions payments, leading to his ultimate removal from the Trump Campaign. 

In January 2016, right at the time of the NABU’s meeting with Obama’s officials, Alexandra Chalupa, who had been investigating Manafort’s work in Ukraine, informed an unknown senior DNC official that she believed there was a Russian connection with the Trump campaign.

This theme would be picked up by the Clinton campaign and the Intelligence Community in the summer of 2016. Chalupa also told the official to expect Manafort’s involvement in the Trump campaign. How Chalupa knew this in advance has never been fully explained.

NABU was established in October 2014 with assistance from the US government – led by a big push from vice-president Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland. In January 2016, NABU director Artem Sytnyk announced that his bureau was close to signing a Memorandum of cooperation with the FBI and by February 9th, the FBI had had a permanent representative onsite at the NABU offices.

One week after the first FBI representative was installed at NABU, on February 18, 2016 – while Joe Biden was actively pushing for Shokin’s removal – authorities in Latvia flagged a series of ‘suspicious’ financial transactions linked to Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and two other unknown individuals involved with Burisma.

It was later reported that “a series of loan payments totaling about $16.6 million that were routed from companies in Belize and the United Kingdom to Burisma through Ukraine’s PrivatBank between 2012 and 2015.” Latvian officials claimed that a portion of these funds were transferred to Hunter, Devon and the two unnamed individuals – one of whom was a US citizen.

Despite requests for assistance, a Latvian official said his government received no criminal evidence from Ukraine and thus took no further action on the investigation. It seems implausible to us that the FBI, with its active presence within Ukraine’s anti-corruption offices, was not aware of these transactions – along with everything else the Bidens were doing.

From the perspective of Obama and Biden, this situation with Latvian authorities needed to be fully contained before it exploded. Indeed, Shokin later said that it was this information that “made it impossible” to shut down his investigation of Burisma. 

Once Biden succeeded in getting Shokin officially fired on March 29, 2016, there was a new focus and a new directive for Biden—finding the proper replacement for Shokin. Despite Shokin’s removal, the Burisma investigation was still technically open.

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko appointed Yuriy Sevruk as Shokin’s replacement the same day as Shokin’s firing. At this same time, Blue Star (hired by Burisma at Hunter’s urging) began vetting Sevruk. It appears that Blue Star decided that Sevruk wasn’t the right person to wrap up all the investigations into Burisma. 

We know this because on May 12, 2016, Former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko was suddenly appointed as Ukraine’s new prosecutor general – replacing Sevruk. The day after Lutsenko was appointed, Biden finally freed up the $1 billion funding to Ukraine that had been originally slated for November 2014 during a call with Poroshenko.

This unexplained delay in funding is important because the Obama White House had been deeply involved in the funding of Ukraine from the very start. It seems totally implausible that Biden could simply delay $1 billion in funding that had been approved by Obama’s White House six months earlier without Obama’s sign off.

On May 27, 2016, there was another call between Biden and Poroshenko (Hunter was inexplicably cc’d on the scheduling email). Three days later, on May 30, 2016, Lutsenko fired Sevruk. There was now an entirely new team at the prosecutor’s office. 

Not so coincidentally, it was on this same day that groundwork for attacks on the Trump campaign really began. Fusion GPS’s Nellie Ohr, wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr, sent an email to Bruce and three other DOJ officials disclosing the existence of the Ukraine Black Box that was later used to target Paul Manafort. No one outside of Ukraine knew of the Black Box – or Black Ledger as it was later known.

Once Biden had finally sorted out the prosecutor situation in Ukraine, he needed to make sure his actions stayed hidden from public inquiry. All the more so because any serious investigation might ultimately shift towards Obama. Which made the ascending Trump Campaign a clear and present threat to Obama.

Obama and Biden couldn’t afford to have Trump poking around Ukraine as the new president. This helps to explain the sudden targeting of the Trump campaign in late spring 2016—just as Biden put the finishing touches on Shokin’s firing. This also explains the explosion of attacks on Trump once he became president. 

As we moved further into Trump’s presidency, it also explains the ferocious response from the DNC when Trump started to ask questions regarding Biden’s actions in Ukraine. If Trump was allowed to continue, he would have discovered all of the Biden misdeeds, Obama’s knowledge of everything, and perhaps other misdeeds from the others among the larger DC Establishment as well.

Everything circles back to Ukraine. And Obama.

After Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) went airborne Thursday for the first time of the war, reportedly targeting the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro, the Kremlin is emphasizing that it is still open to peace – amid this week’s fresh wave of hugely escalatory policies issued from the US and UK (namely, greenlighting long-range attacks on Russian territory with West-supplied missiles).

A senior Ukrainian military official earlier told the Financial Times that Russia launched an ICBM called “RS-26 Rubezh” that has a range of 3,700 miles and can strike any European capital. In the wake of this, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a press briefing that Russia is still ready to consider any “realistic” peace initiative on the conflict in Ukraine.

She said a realistic plan takes into account Russia’s own interests and the situation on the ground. “We are open to negotiations, we are ready to consider any realistic, non-politicized initiative – of course,” Zakharova said.

“I would like to emphasize once again: the key word is taking into account the interests of our country, the current situation on ground and guarantees of compliance with relevant agreements,” she reiterated.

President Putin has previously indicated that a realistic solution would hinge on nothing less than Ukraine giving up all aspirations to join NATO as well as the ceding of the four territories in the east and south, namely Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions.

Ukrainian officials have throughout the war spoken as if the ceding of the eastern territories is a non-starter. However, Zelensky views Trump’s plan to jump-start peace negotiations as authentic.

“I believe that President Trump really wants a quick decision” to end the war, Zelensky told a European summit earlier this month, but followed with: “It doesn’t mean that it will happen this way.”

“He [Trump] wants this war to be finished,” Zelensky continued, but then described hasty resolution “is going to be a loss for Ukraine.”

wow, in the middle of her press briefing just now, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova got a phone call from someone instructing her not to comment on today’s ICBM allegations. pic.twitter.com/rH3fpoxIHQ

— Kevin Rothrock (@KevinRothrock) November 21, 2024

There’s currently much speculation over why the Biden administration seems bent on hastening WW3 with only two months left in office. Is this about building rapid leverage for Kiev before Trump enters? Is the White House trying to thwart Trump’s plans for peace? 

Putin might take the path of restraint and patience until Trump enters the Oval, keeping available options open – though it’s clear that things are escalating fast. The conflict grows more unpredictable by the day, given the injection of Western long-range missile systems.

Via SchiffGold.com,

The Cantillon Effect, named after 18th-century economist Richard Cantillon, describes the way newly created money flows through an economy, affecting different sectors and social classes unevenly. When a central bank like the Federal Reserve injects new money into the economy – often through measures like quantitative easing or low interest rates – this money doesn’t distribute itself evenly. Instead, it creates ripple effects that impact different people in distinct ways, often favoring the wealthy and disadvantaging lower-income individuals. The Austrian school of economics uses Cantillon’s observations as a lens to critique monetary policy, particularly in how it exacerbates inequality and distorts prices.

To understand Cantillon effects, consider the mechanics of monetary expansion.

When the central bank injects new money, it usually flows first to financial institutions, corporations, and government contractors, often through bond purchases or direct lending programs. These recipients gain early access to freshly created money, which gives them an advantage: they can spend or invest it before prices have risen to reflect the increased money supply. By the time this money trickles down to the broader economy, prices may have already increased, diminishing the purchasing power of wages and savings held by average consumers.

This phenomenon is directly tied to inflation. When new money is introduced, it often leads to a general rise in prices across the economy, though this effect is not immediate or uniform. For those at the top, the initial wave of new money creates lucrative opportunities: they can buy assets like stocks, real estate, or commodities before these prices are driven up by inflation. However, for the average worker or consumer, inflation manifests in a more damaging way. By the time new money circulates through the economy to the broader public, the prices of essential goods and services—like housing, food, and fuel—have already risen, eroding the purchasing power of wages and savings.

The Cantillon Effect, therefore, highlights a key criticism of inflationary monetary policy: it benefits those who have first access to new money at the expense of those who do not. Wealthier individuals, businesses, and financial entities are often the first recipients, allowing them to use this new money to their advantage by investing in assets that outpace inflation. Meanwhile, those lower on the economic ladder experience rising costs without a proportional increase in income, which erodes their purchasing power.

The Austrian school of economics views these distortions as symptomatic of a flawed monetary system. Austrian economists argue that when the money supply is manipulated, it sends false signals throughout the economy, creating what economist Ludwig von Mises called “malinvestment.” In a natural market, prices reflect genuine supply and demand, guiding resources to their most efficient uses. However, when the central bank expands the money supply, it artificially lowers interest rates, leading businesses to take on investments that may not be sustainable in the long run. For example, cheap credit may encourage excessive borrowing for real estate projects or speculative investments, inflating asset bubbles. When these bubbles inevitably burst, it’s typically lower-income workers who bear the brunt through job losses and economic contraction.

The Cantillon Effect is a critical aspect of how inflation disproportionately impacts the poor. Wealthy individuals and corporations, who have easier access to credit and investments, can protect themselves from inflation by diversifying into assets that appreciate in value. They may own real estate, stocks, or commodities—assets that tend to rise in price as the value of the dollar declines. In contrast, working-class consumers often hold their wealth primarily in cash or limited savings, which do not keep pace with inflation. They feel the direct impact of rising prices on essentials, while their wages stagnate or grow slower than inflation.

From an Austrian perspective, these effects reveal the inherent injustice of a fiat currency system. When the money supply can be expanded at will, the purchasing power of the currency continually erodes, hurting those who depend on stable prices to make ends meet. Austrian economists argue for a return to sound money principles, such as a gold standard, which limit the ability of central banks to expand the money supply arbitrarily. Under a sound money system, prices would be more stable, preserving the value of wages and savings over time.

The Cantillon Effect thus serves as a powerful illustration of how inflationary monetary policy can lead to unintended, but deeply damaging, social consequences. It underscores the Austrian view that central bank policies, while often well-intentioned, tend to exacerbate inequality and create cycles of boom and bust. For the poor and working class, inflation means diminished purchasing power, greater economic vulnerability, and reduced social mobility. By allowing markets rather than central banks to set the supply of money, the Austrian school contends that economies could achieve more equitable and sustainable growth, free from the distortions and inequities inherent in inflationary policies.

Authored by Alex O’Donnell via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin exchange-traded funds now collectively manage approximately $104 billion, and are on track to surpass gold ETFs in net assets.

United States Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) broke $100 billion in net assets for the first time on Nov. 21, according to data from Bloomberg Intelligence.

Bitcoin has dominated the ETF landscape since spot BTC ETFs launched in January. Investor interest accelerated after crypto-friendly President-elect Donald Trump prevailed on Nov. 5 in the US elections.

Collectively, BTC ETFs now manage approximately $104 billion. They are on track to surpass gold ETFs in net assets, which together hold approximately $120 billion in assets under management (AUM) as of Nov. 21, according to Bitcoin Archive.

Bitcoin ETFs are “now 97% of way to passing Satoshi as biggest holder and 82% of way to passing gold ETFs,” Eric Balchunas, an ETF analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, said in a Nov. 21 post on the X platform.

Source: Bitcoin Archive

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) leads the pack, pulling $30 billion in net inflows since January, according to Bloomberg data.

Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) has been the second most popular BTC ETF, seeing inflows of more than $11 billion so far this year, per Bloomberg.

The crypto market surged following Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, as many believe his win will benefit the industry, Cointelegraph Research said.

Spot BTC traded at more than $96,000 as of Nov. 21, up nearly 120% since the start of 2024, according to Google Finance data.

Nov. 6 was IBIT’s “biggest volume day ever” as investors flocked to cryptocurrencies after Trump’s election win, Balchunas said in a Nov. 6 X post.

On Nov. 7, IBIT clocked $1.1 billion in inflows, reclaiming inflow status after two consecutive days of outflows totaling $113.3 million, according to Farside data.

Source: Bloomberg Intelligence

BTC is expected to top somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000 per coin, MV Global said.

BlackRock’s IBIT now holds more assets than the asset manager’s gold ETF despite only launching in January, data from BlackRock shows.

Investors are turning toward gold and BTC in a so-called “debasement trade” as they brace for a “catastrophic scenario” amid rising geopolitical tensions, according to an Oct. 3 report by JPMorgan.

With the Russian army relentlessly seizing more territory while mounting casualties, power outages, and aggressive conscription tactics make life miserable for everyone, half of Ukrainians have had enough: They now want their government to pursue a deal that ends the war as soon as possible.  

According to the latest Gallup polls, 52% of Ukrainians agreed with the statement “Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible.”  That’s substantially more than the 38% who said the country should “continue fighting until it wins the war.” These are huge shifts in sentiment from polls taken in 2022. Then, 73% of Ukrainians were gung-ho about fighting to victory, while only 22% were eager for a speedy, negotiated end to the conflict. 

Of those who want a negotiated end to the war, 52% say Ukraine should be willing to make territorial concessions; 38% disagreed. Meanwhile, among the “keep-fighting” crowd, the definition of victory is starting to bend to realities on the ground. Last year, 93% of them defined victory as Ukraine regaining all territory, even Crimea. That’s now dropped to 81%.   

In a sign that fewer Ukrainians view the United States government as part of the solution, more Ukrainians think the European Union and the United Kingdom should play “a significant role” in peace negotiations than the United States. The poll was taken in October; at the time, more Ukrainians wanted a potential Kamala Harris administration to play a significant role than a Donald Trump one. 

The important new read on sentiment inside Ukraine comes days after President Biden gave the green light for a major escalation of the war, by authorizing Ukraine to use the long-range, US-made MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System to strike deeper into Russian territory. Ukraine quickly put its new permission to work, striking a Russian military facility near the city of Karachev in the Bryansk region — about 71 miles from the Ukraine border. 

Biden’s policy change prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to threaten a “symmetrical” response, enabling strikes against the United States by third parties: 

“If someone considers it possible to supply such weapons to a combat zone to strike our territory and create problems for us, then why do we not have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world from which the strikes will be carried out on sensitive objects of those countries that do this in relation to Russia? That is, the answer may be symmetrical. We will think about it.”

On Tuesday, Putin signed off on an update to Russia’s nuclear weapons policy. Under the revised doctrine, a conventional attack on Russia that is enabled by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack by the two actors. More chillingly, Russia will now consider nuclear retaliation for conventional attacks by a nuclear power.

Since Ukraine is constantly — if dubiously — touted as an exemplary democracy, let’s hope its government yields to its citizens’ growing desire for peace before it’s too late for all of us. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

I have previously written about the dubious investigations of the shooting of Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6th and the alleged violation of the standards for the use of lethal force by the officer who shot her. I strongly disagreed with the findings of investigations by the Capitol Police and the Justice Department in clearing Captain Michael Byrd, who shot the unarmed protester. Now, Just the News has an alarming report of the record of Byrd that only magnifies these concerns.

Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt, who was shot while trying to climb through a window.

However, the media lionized Byrd and portrayed the killing of the unarmed Babbitt as clearly justified. That is in sharp contrast to the approach that the media has taken in other shootings by law enforcement.

An unjustified killing by police on that day was inconsistent with the public narrative pushed by the pundits and the press.

As I have previously written, what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed.

The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol, interrupted the constitutional process, and committed property damage.

Babbitt was one of those rioters. She was wrong in her actions, but the penalty for breaking a window and unauthorized entry is not death in this country. I previously spoke with her mother, Micki Witthoeft, and her husband, Aaron Babbitt, about their continuing effort to expose what occurred that day.

The new report confirms what many of us had previously heard about the Byrd controversy.

Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran and Trump supporter who participated in the riot three years ago. She was clearly committing criminal acts of trespass, property damage, and other offenses.  However, the question is whether an officer is justified in shooting a protester when he admits that he did not see any weapon before discharging his weapon.

Just to recap what we previously discussed in the earlier column:

When protesters rushed to the House chamber, police barricaded the chamber’s doors; Capitol Police were on both sides, with officers standing directly behind Babbitt. Babbitt and others began to force their way through, and Babbitt started to climb through a broken window. That is when Byrd killed her.

At the time, some of us familiar with the rules governing police use of force raised concerns over the shooting. Those concerns were heightened by the DOJ’s bizarre review and report, which stated the governing standards but then seemed to brush them aside to clear Byrd.

The DOJ report did not read like any post-shooting review I have read as a criminal defense attorney or law professor. The DOJ statement notably does not say that the shooting was justified. Instead, it stressed that “prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so ‘willfully.’” It seemed simply to shrug and say that the DOJ did not believe it could prove “a bad purpose to disregard the law” and that “evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent.”

While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters.

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers. That even applies to armed suspects who fail to obey orders. Indeed, Huntsville police officer William “Ben” Darby was convicted of killing a suicidal man holding a gun to his head. Despite being cleared by a police review board, Darby was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though Darby said he feared for the safety of himself and fellow officers. Yet law professors and experts who have praised such prosecutions in the past have been conspicuously silent over the shooting of an unarmed woman who had officers in front of and behind her on Jan. 6.

Byrd went public soon after the Capitol Police declared that “no further action will be taken” in the case. He then demolished the two official reviews that cleared him.

Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”

Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.

The new report confirms prior accounts that Byrd had prior disciplinary and training issues. According to Just the News, they included “a failed shotgun qualification test, a failed FBI background check for a weapon’s purchase, a 33-day suspension for a lost weapon and referral to Maryland state prosecutors for firing his gun at a stolen car fleeing his neighborhood.”

Given this history and the shooting of Babbitt, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., the chair of the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation, wrote to express concern over Byrd’s promotion to captain. Those incidents included Byrd firing at a car and allegedly misrepresenting the incident in claiming that “he fired at a vehicle trying to strike him when the evidence fellow officers found at the scene indicated he shot at the vehicle after it had already passed him and no longer posed a threat.” The letter states the Office of Professional Responsibility found that the evidence did not support his claim and “OPR concluded that the evidence suggests Byrd ‘discharged his service weapon at the vans after they passed him by.’”

The concern is that the political environment — and powerful interests in Congress — demanded that Byrd be cleared. As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right,” the Justice Department had publicly pledged to bring “shock and awe” in prosecuting anyone associated with the riot. Finding that the only person killed that day was an unjustified shooting would not exactly fit with the narrative.

The incidents also include allegations of improper handling of his weapon, including reports that Byrd left his service weapon in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex used by tourists and visitors.

The Babbitt family has continued to fight to force the facts into the open and has filed a civil case. A trial is now set for 2026.

Here is his letter detailing the disciplinary problems of Captain Byrd: 11.20.2024 Letter From Rep. Barry Loudermilk to USCP Chief of Police Manger.pdf

*  *  *

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