Biden Quietly Bans Most Gas Powered Tankless Water Heaters
In a significant regulatory shift that took place quietly the day after Christmas, the Biden administration finalized new climate rules targeting natural gas-powered instantaneous water heaters. The Department of Energy (DOE), which traditionally issues a press release for such regulations, chose not to announce these changes publicly, raising eyebrows across various sectors.
According to the Free Beacon, the new regulations aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a move aligned with broader climate change mitigation efforts. However, the regulations are set to remove approximately 40% of the current tankless water heater models from the market by 2029 (between gas and electric). This shift is expected to force consumers to opt for either more expensive or less efficient alternatives.
An industry analysis forecasts that the average cost increase for new water heaters due to the regulations will be around $450. This price hike is poised to disproportionately affect low-income and senior households, who are among the most reliant on the more affordable models currently targeted for phase-out.
Meanwhile, the timing of these regulations is noteworthy – coming in the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s electoral victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump has expressed intentions to roll back many of Biden’s climate initiatives to bolster energy production and stimulate economic growth. This regulatory push on water heaters is part of a series of actions targeting household appliances, including gas stoves and refrigerators, aimed at reducing carbon emissions and promoting electric alternatives.
Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, criticized the move, stating, “It bans an entire category of tankless water heaters and the ones that are most affordable. This is all part of the climate change agenda…an antipathy towards natural gas because they want to electrify everything.”
Industry’s Response and Legal Challenges
The regulation has sparked extensive debate about its legality and practicality. The American Gas Association has hinted at possible legal action, suggesting that the rule might violate the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which prohibits banning products that offer unique performance characteristics.
Frank Windsor, president of Rinnai America, the nation’s leading manufacturer of tankless water heaters, voiced strong opposition. He highlighted the contradiction in eliminating higher-efficiency product categories- telling the Beacon, “If you really want to impact the water heating ruling, you really need to deal with the tank models.” Rinnai America, having invested $70 million in a new facility in Georgia based on the previous administration’s manufacturing incentives, finds itself at risk of seeing its investment become obsolete under the new rules.
Last week, we discussed how it seemed as if Santa arrived on Christmas Eve, pushing the markets back above the important 50-DMA. However, by the end of the year, it seemed investors were naughty this year and received a “lump of coal,“ with markets selling off back toward recent lows. One important note was that momentum and relative strength remained weak, keeping selling pressure intact.
There is no way to sugarcoat the market’s poor performance. While December started with a bang, it ended with a whimper, with a long stretch of daily losses into year-end. Now, 2025 is opening with a whimper. Small caps fell apart after attempting to “make a comeback,” and overall market breadth declined. However, with the markets now oversold, we should expect a rally heading into the Presidential inauguration, which likely started on Friday.
Despite Friday’s impressive reflexive rally, the market fell about 0.5% short of rallying enough to save the “Santa Rally.”
However, although the “Santa Rally” failed to materialize, bullish hopes for 2025 are not yet lost.
“Since 1950, when all three January indicators (The Santa Claus Rally (SCR), First Five Days (FFD) and the full-month January Barometer (JB)) are up, the S&P 500 was up 90.6% of the time (29 out of 32 years) with an average gain of 17.7%. When one or more of the Trifecta is down, in this case, the SCR, the year is up 59.5% of the time (25 of 42) with a paltry average gain of 2.9%.” – Stocktraders Almanac
While the lack of a Santa rally is disappointing, as noted by Stocktraders Almanac:
“Of the 16 down SCRs since 1950, 11 years have been up and 5 down, but the average gain is a tepid 6.1%.“
However, even with a failed Santa rally, the January barometer holds the key for the year. Historically, a positive January has been a bullish sign for stocks. The chart below highlights that the popular Wall Street maxim has stood the test of time. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has posted an average annual return of 16.8% during years that included a positive January. Furthermore, the index generated positive returns in 89% of these years. In contrast, when the index traded lower in January, annual returns dropped to -1.7%, with only 50% of occurrences yielding positive results.
With the bulls needing a positive January performance, the market has its work cut out. However, with the market’s short-term oversold and breadth, there is a reasonable technical setup for an improvement in performance in January.
However, will 2025 be another banner year? Maybe. But the market certainly faces headwinds, from elevated earnings expectations to valuations. Our best guess is that while this year will likely see a continuation of the bull market cycle, it will be punctuated by increased bouts of volatility that will weigh on investor sentiment. In other words, “buckle up and keep your arms and belongings inside the vehicle.”
This week, we will do a short 2024 review.
2024 Review – Another 20% Plus Year
The market had another 20% plus return for the year. As we discussed previously, the market rarely delivers an “average” return of 8-10%. About 38% of the time, the market delivers 20% or more returns.
Since 1900, the stock market has “averaged” an 8% annualized rate of return. However, this does NOT mean the market returns 8% every year. As we discussed recently, several key facts about markets should be understood. Stocks rise more often than they fall: Historically, the stock market increases about 73% of the time. The other 27% of the time, market corrections reverse the excesses of previous advances. The table below shows the dispersion of returns over time.”
For analysts, being permanently “bullish” leads to a 73% success rate on market calls, which, if you are a professional baseball player, a .730 batting average will enshrine you in the “Hall Of Fame.” However, as investors, the problem with being always bullish is the impact on our portfolios for the “other” 27% of outcomes. This is important in the history of 20% plus annual returns. In the table above, in the far-right column, there are periods where 20% plus gains were clustered.
So, what does that mean?
The Long Term
It is worth noting that these periods of “well-above-average” returns were followed by “well-below-average” returns. As shown, these periods of “mean-reversion” were generally triggered by some event that reversed elevated valuation levels.
As we see in the market, these periods of excess valuations are a psychological byproduct of investor sentiment. Our 2024 review found that investor allocations to equities reached a record, corresponding to a sharp increase in valuation levels as investors were willing to overpay for earnings growth.
As asset prices rise, speculation. increases, creating a “feedback loop.” The more asset prices rise, the more confident investors become, leading to further price increases fueling a bull market. The chart below shows the length of previous bull markets throughout history, with the average length of bull markets running about 5 1/2 years.
However, while the long duration of bull markets favors being bullish, the problem is that eventually, some “event” occurs that causes a reversal of expectations. When that occurs, investors reprice the market back to reality. As shown, bear markets and the ensuing recessions are generally very short. Most bear markets last less than 18 months and are more painful experiences.
Does that mean 2025 will be a “mean reverting” year? No. However, as discussed in this 2024 review, there are certain warning signs that next year could be very different.
2024 Review – A Year Of Concentration
For the second year in a row, the one big standout was the level of market concentration. The “Mega-cap” stocks have become an ever-increasing percentage of the S&P 500 index. We have not witnessed this since the early 70s with the “Nifty-Fifty” and just before the “Dot.com” crash.
Over the last few years, capital flows into the largest market capitalization stocks have led to an increasing skew between the “have and have nots.” Over the last year, the companies that dominate the market capitalization weighting of the S&P 500 index created a substantial outperformance over the equal-weighted index.
Speaking of the “have-nots,” the 60/40 allocation lagged far behind the S&P 500 index on a performance basis as bonds struggled with “sticky inflation” andcontinued to push to increase portfolio risk as investors chased asset prices higher.
However, that continued performance chase has led to the most significant rolling two-year performance spread between the market capitalization and equal-weighted index since 2008 and 2019.
While the surge in market concentration has been notable over the last two years, the chase for performance has been a growing issue since 2014. As shown, the Nasdaq and S&P 500 (both market-capitalization-weighted and dominated by the same stocks) have massively outperformed everything from small and mid-capitalization companies to gold, oil, and bonds.
Notably, in 2024, the “Mega 7” market-capitalization companies returned 50%, while the S&P 500 was higher by 22%, and the Russell 2000 trailed far behind, rising just 12%.
The question is, why is this happening?
2024 Review – Speculation Goes Parabolic
As discussed, the surge in “Exchange-Traded Funds” or “ETFs” has changed the investing landscape.
“Following the 2020 pandemic shutdown, the Government and Federal Reserve went into overdrive, providing round after round of fiscal and monetary support. Money flooded the economy, from PPP Loans to rent moratoriums, $1500 checks directly to consumers, debt forgiveness, zero interest rates, and quantitative easing. Unsurprisingly, much of that money entered the financial markets, and retail investors plowed nearly $900 billion in market-related ETFs. Interestingly, in 2024, most of those supports are gone, interest rates have risen sharply, and the Federal Reserve is reducing its balance sheet. Yet, somehow, investors figured out a way to push $913 billion (YTD) into ETFs, which is a record inflow.”
That surge of capital into ETFs contributed to the outsized performance of large capitalization companies, primarily the “Magnificent 7,” relative to the rest of the index, as shown above. This happens because most of these passive ETFs are market capitalization-weighted.
For example, every ETF that tracks the S&P 500 index, the Nasdaq, or some variation thereof has the same top holdings. Currently, the top 10 stocks comprise roughly 40% of those ETFs.
Therefore, every time someone invests $1 into one of those ETFs, roughly 40 cents of that dollar flows into just 10 stocks. Such is why, in our 2024 review, those 10 stocks, except Microsoft, outperformed the S&P 500 index by a wide margin.
The byproduct of consistently rising prices and investors’ chase for performance creates demand for Wall Street to provide more products for investors to purchase. This is why 2024 saw a massive increase in single-stock ETFs and, more critically, leveraged ETFs.
The growing demand by investors to leverage speculate in the market is a topic we covered recently in our Daily Market Commentary and is the hallmark of our 2024 review:
“We see surging volume in leveraged single-stock ETFs. An example of such an ETF is Granite Shares NVDL. The ETF offers a 2x leveraged holding of Nvidia shares. If Nvidia falls by 3%, the ETF will decline by 6%. Conversely, if Nvidia rises by 5%, the ETF will climb 10%. Accordingly, leveraged single-stock ETFs can be incredibly speculative. Furthermore, the massive surge in volume in such ETFs, as we share below, further confirms speculative behaviors are growing.
Leverage and extreme speculation can drive markets higher than most investors forecast. However, in the process, they create a divergence between fundamentals and valuations, thus exposing the markets to risk. Increased leverage and speculation are not reasons to sell immediately, but they indicate that markets are getting frothy, warranting our close attention.“
The important point is that while 2024 was a great year in the markets, history suggests that expectations for 2025 should likely be tempered. Such brings us to the obvious question, “What should I be watching for to signal a shift in investor sentiment?”
2024 Review – What To Watch For In 2025
While investors are giddy with returns over the past year, that exuberance has increased the expectation that things will continue in 2025. Of course, earnings growth will be the biggest driver for returns in 2025.
Forward earnings estimates are optimistic and well above their long-term historical logarithmic growth trend. Analysts expect the S&P 500 will see earnings reach $249/share from $208/share at the end of 2024. That is an expected growth rate of 19% for earnings. However, that current estimate is $68/share above historical earnings’ long-term exponential growth trend. While such deviations existed previously, they were usually close to the point where such optimism ended. The ends of those exuberant periods of earnings growth generally coincided with a recession or a mean-reverting event. However, while estimates are currently very elevated, they can remain elevated longer than you think possible.
The timing of “the” event that reverses more extreme investor exuberance and speculation is always the most challenging. However, it always occurs when it is least expected. As we enter 2025, investor sentiment of expected stock returns over the next 12 months is near the highest levels on record. At the same time, credit spreads remain near the lowest levels on record, confirming the high degree of complacency in today’s markets.
Such exuberance and overconfidence tend to precede some level of disappointment.
Earnings Matter More Than You Think
The most significant risk in 2025 is an event that causes a significant decline in earnings expectations. As shown, there is a very high correlation between earnings trends and the rate of change in asset prices.
“The problem with current forward estimates is that several factors must exist to sustain historically high earnings growth.
Economic growth must remain more robust than the average 20-year growth rate.
Wage and labor growth must reverse to sustain historically elevated profit margins, and,
Both interest rates and inflation must reverse to very low levels.
While such is possible, the probabilities are low, as strong economic growth cannot exist in a low inflation and interest-rate environment. More notably, if the Fed cuts rates further, as most economists and analysts expect next year, such will be in response to a slowing economic environment or financial stress. Such would not support more optimistic earnings estimates of $251 per share next year. This represents roughly a 19% increase from Q4-2024 levels. (In 2023, estimates for 2024 suggested a 14% increase, which was just 9%. The long-term trend of earnings growth from 1900 to the present is just 7.7%).”
While the bullish predictions for next year are certainly possible, that outcome faces many challenges. This is particularly true given that the market trades at fairly lofty valuations. Even in a “soft landing” environment, earnings should weaken, which makes current valuations at 27x earnings more challenging to sustain. Therefore, assuming earnings decline toward their long-term trend, that would suggest current estimates fall to $220/share by the end of 2025. This substantially changes the outlook for stocks.
I can promise you, there is no company in America happier that it’s Saturday than Allstate. Not even close.
They needed the weekend in just the worst possible way. Now, it’s all their fault, because they tried to virtue-signal and politize a terrorist attack on US soil. Stupid. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
That crap may have flown a few months ago, but not anymore. Americans overwhelmingly rejected woke culture in November. It’s over. You guys lost. Sanity is back.
And that means insanely dumb videos like the one Allstate pumped out during Thursday’s Sugar Bowl, in which their CEO basically called out us – AMERICANS! – for not being more positive and receptive to change in the wake of the New Orleans terrorist attack, no longer fly.
They don’t work. We don’t accept them, and, in turn, we don’t accept your stupid narrative.
That’s not the point of this blog. The point here is … furious customers have also discovered another video from Allstate, this one from last year, which perfectly explains just how woke this company really is.
Enjoy!
DEI chief for @Allstate boasted about using DEI in their hiring practices and promised to use more diversity specifically when hiring for leadership positions.
My God. It’s just amazing. Seriously, it’s amazing how bad they are. And by they, I mean box-checking execs who try to cater to the mob when, deep down, they really don’t care about the mob.
They care about being canceled, which is why they try to gaslight to the highest degree so they can point to videos like this and say, WE ARE DIVERSE!
But we don’t want you to be diverse. We want you to be good at your job. I’ve long said that DEI hiring is the most racist thing in the country. I was a boss not too long ago for a woke media company (y’all can figure out which one pretty easily), and I had to hire people.
And I was told, in no uncertain terms, to do my best to check the diversity box. And you know what I told them? Kick rocks.
I want resumes laid in front of me, with no names on them, and I’ll pick the best ones. That’s it. That’s all we want – the best people hired, no matter what color they are.
So does this video from Allstate shock me? Of course not. I’ve seen it up close and personal. I’ve seen it happen in real-time.
Does explain Thursday’s woke Sugar Bowl video a little more, though.
MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell elicited backlash Friday for declaring that US veterans represent a greater terror threat than the undocumented illegal immigrants crossing over the border in their hundreds of thousands per month.
Reacting to the two new year’s day terror attacks on his program watched by practically nobody now, O’Donnell declared “The simple fact is, this country has suffered more deadly terrorism at the hands of American-born citizens who are veterans of the United States military than people who have crossed into this country at the southern border.”
“It is very clear from the evidence that if you want to worry about terrorism in this country, the United States Army is a much bigger problem than the southern border,” he further proclaimed.
O’Donnell then referred to Timothy McVeigh, the domestic terrorist behind the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, to argue that American veterans have carried out more violent acts in the US than illegal immigrants have.
“Timothy McVeigh parked a truck outside that building loaded with explosives in an act of homegrown American terrorism,” O’Donnell stated.
He continued, “Timothy McVeigh’s hatred of the American government was not tamed in any way by his service in the American military. So, too, with America’s latest terrorist attack in New Orleans on New Year’s Eve, with an American military veteran driving a pickup truck through a crowd to murder 14 people.”
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: “It is very clear from the evidence that if you want to worry about terrorism in this country, the United States Army is a much bigger problem than the southern border.” pic.twitter.com/b5859v9QIm
The host conveniently left out the thousands of illegals that have been convicted of violent crimes, even murders, and instead suggested that every military vet is a potential truck bomber.
So the media supports the US sending warriors to go fight wars for their buddy politician friends; then they use the veteran status of these warriors as an excuse to not criticize the invasion at our southern border; and the real problem is veterans? That’s narrative building.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Make Greenland Great Again: PM Seeks Independence From Denmark
“For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, while also announcing Ken Howery for US ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark.
Trump’s reopening of discussions about purchasing rare earth minerals-rich Greenland came just before Christmas and were followed by the usual kerfuffle from the liberal media.
But, as the Wall Street Journal reports, during his New Year speech, Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede emphasized his desire to pursue independence from Denmark, its former colonial ruler, marking a significant change in the rhetoric surrounding the Arctic island’s future.
As a reminder, Greenland – the world’s biggest island which is home to about 57,000 people – was a Danish colony until it become a self-governing territory of Denmark in 1979.
Since 2009, Greenland has held the right to declare independence through a referendum.
Egede’s speech also expressed a desire to strengthen Greenland’s cooperation with other countries.
“It is about time that we ourselves take a step and shape our future, also with regard to who we will cooperate closely with, and who our trading partners will be,” he said…
“It is now time for our country to take the next step. Like other countries in the world, we must work to remove the obstacles to cooperation – which we can describe as the shackles of colonialism – and move forward,” he said.
As Mike Shedlock notes, Greenland – whose capital Nuuk is nearer to New York than Copenhagen – is rich in mineral, oil, and natural gas resources, but it relies on annual subsidies from Denmark worth some €500 million a year.
Home to a large US Air Force air base, Greenland is strategically vital for the US military. Following Trump’s latest remarks about buying the island last month, Denmark announced it would increase defence spending there by at least €1.3 billion — though Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the timing was just an “irony of fate”.
Of course, none of this means that Mr. Egede welcomes a U.S. acquisition. Kathryn Armstrong reported for the BBC after the most recent Trump declaration of interest last month:
Greenland has once again said it is not for sale after US President-elect Donald Trump said he wanted to take control of the territory.
“Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland,” its prime minister said on Monday, a day after Trump repeated comments about the Arctic island that he first made several years ago.
But if Greenland is rapidly moving toward a split with Denmark, it will likely be seeking a partner to offer security, as well as new commercial opportunities. The BBC report quoted Mr. Egede:
“We must not lose our long struggle for freedom. However, we must continue to be open to co-operation and trade with the whole world, especially with our neighbours,” he said.
Responding to Trump’s latest comments, Egede last week said that Greenland is “not for sale and will never be for sale”.
Danish voters may well have something to say about that…
Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.), while they also won their elections on Nov. 5, have already been sworn into the Senate and therefore will not be considered freshmen. Both previously served in the House.
Additionally, new senators from Ohio and Florida will be appointed by their state’s governor to succeed Sens. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Vance will be sworn in as vice president on Jan. 20, while Rubio is expected to win Senate confirmation as Secretary of State.
Their resignation dates and successors have yet to be announced.
Below are the new members of what some have called the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”
Angela Alsobrooks
Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, will succeed Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is leaving Congress after 37 years, 17 of them in the Senate.
She defeated former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, with 54.7 percent of the vote.
Alsobrooks, 53, previously was the executive of Prince George’s County and the county’s top prosecutor.
She comes into Congress as a progressive who, for instance, is for abolishing or reforming the filibuster, especially to codify the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned.
The filibuster requires 60 votes in order to advance most legislation in the Senate. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said the mechanism will remain in place.
Although Alsobrooks has called for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, she has said she backs the Jewish state’s right to defend itself. She has also called for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
She has blamed big companies “who are receiving record profits right now” for being behind high inflation.
Alsobrooks has also expressed support for an assault weapons ban and prohibiting ghost guns.
Jim Banks
Jim Banks will replace Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who was elected governor of Indiana.
Banks, 45, a Republican, defeated Valerie McCray, a Democrat and clinical psychologist, with 58.7 percent of the vote.
A conservative, Banks heads to the Senate after serving in the House since 2017, representing Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District.
He is a staunch ally of President-elect Donald Trump, whose “complete and total” endorsement of him cleared the GOP primary field.
“Jim Banks is running for the United States Senate from the Great State of Indiana. I know Jim well, have seen him tested at the highest and most difficult levels and WIN!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
“Strong on the border, crime, our military, and our vets, Jim will fight for low taxes and regulations, sanity in government, and our under-siege 2nd Amendment.”
Banks ran on issues that included securing the border, protecting the unborn, supporting veterans, fiscal responsibility, opposing wokeness in public schools, and supporting law enforcement.
John Curtis, a Republican, will succeed Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who declined to run for a second term following a Senate career that included staunch criticism of Trump, and voting to convict him in both his impeachment trials.
He defeated Democrat environmentalist Caroline Gleich with 62.5 percent of the vote.
Curtis, 64, has represented Utah’s 3rd Congressional District since 2017. He previously was mayor of Provo, Utah.
While not an opponent of Trump, he is not a staunch ally.
“I do have my own mind, and I’m not a rubber stamp. My stamp is the stamp of the state of Utah,” Curtis told ABC News.
He told the outlet that one of his disagreements with Trump is on the issue of the spending.
Trump added $7.8 trillion to the national debt during his first term, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Curtis’s message to Trump?
“Mr. President, from time to time, I’m going to disagree with you. And it will be respectful,” Curtis told ABC News. “And I think when I disagree with you, it will be helpful. And I hope you’ll listen to me.”
Ruben Gallego, a progressive Democrat, will take the seat of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), who was known for her independent streak, having been a Democrat who resisted calls to abolish the filibuster, thereby saving the institutional mechanism amid pressure from the left.
He has been in Congress, representing Arizona’s 7th Congressional District from 2015 to January 2023 and now the state’s 3rd Congressional District. He previously served in the Arizona House of Representatives.
Gallego, 45, defeated former TV anchor and gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, a Republican, with 50.1 percent of the vote.
He struck a critical tone toward his fellow Democrats, especially as it pertains to the Latino vote.
“There is no winning nationally without Latinos,” he told CBS News.
“Go touch grass and meet real Latinos.”
Gallego served in the Marine Corps and fought in the Iraq War.
Jim Justice
Jim Justice, currently the Republican governor of West Virginia, handily defeated Glenn Elliott, a Democrat and former mayor, with 68.8 percent of the vote.
He will succeed Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), who chose not to run for reelection after a career of more than 14 years that included going against his party on issues such as energy and the filibuster, which he was against abolishing despite left-wing pressure and intimidation.
However, Justice, 73, will not enter the Senate until after he resigns as governor on Jan. 12.
“My whole thinking behind all this is the continuity of government is essential during transitions,” he told reporters on Dec. 27.
After all, he said, the real legislating will occur when Trump takes office.
“I could move on, and I could be sworn into the Senate between Jan. 3 and when President Trump takes office,” he said.
“There’ll be some things happen, but there won’t be anything happening really until when President Trump takes office.”
Justice, a multimillionaire, was previously a coal tycoon. His English bulldog, Babydog, is a celebrity; he even appeared with Justice at the Republican National Convention.
Dave McCormick
Dave McCormick, a Republican, will enter the Senate with extensive experience in the business sector and in the federal government.
He narrowly defeated Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) with 48.8 percent of the vote, or 16,205 votes.
McCormick, who sought to cobble together a broad coalition that included pro-Trump voters and non-voters, ran on tying Casey to President Joe Biden.
He said Casey was out of touch with Pennsylvania voters.
McCormick criticized out-of-control spending and a “war on fossil fuels” for high inflation.
Additionally, he called for securing the border, treating the cartels like terrorist organizations, and therefore using military action against them, and exporting natural gas.
An Army veteran, McCormick, 59, served in the 1991 Gulf War.
He also served in multiple roles in the Bush administration.
Bernie Moreno
Businessman Bernie Moreno, a Republican, is a political newcomer. Born in Colombia, he became a U.S. citizen at age 18.
He narrowly defeated Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) with 50.2 percent of the vote, or 209,652 votes. Brown had been in Congress since 1992, and 17 of those years were spent in the Senate.
His campaign website includes 16 issues he cares about, including securing the border, standing with law enforcement, defending the Second Amendment, “beating Communist China,” fiscal responsibility, election integrity, and congressional term limits.
On the last point, Moreno told The Epoch he would only serve 12 years, or two terms.
Lisa Blunt Rochester
Lisa Blunt Rochester, a progressive Democrat, enters the Senate having represented Delaware’s at-large congressional district since 2017.
She defeated Republican Eric Hansen with 56.6 percent of the vote to succeed Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who has been in the Senate since 2001.
Rochester, 62, ran on a platform of supporting abortion rights, gun control, fighting for LGBTQ rights, combating climate change, and working in a bipartisan manner.
Tim Sheehy
Tim Sheehy, a Republican, never served in public office prior to unseating Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who has served in the Senate since 2007, with 52.6 percent of the vote.
He called for securing the border, protecting the Second Amendment, fiscal responsibility, supporting veterans, opposing a national abortion ban, and combating the threat from China.
Sheehy was recruited by Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) in his capacity as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the official campaign and finance arm of the Senate GOP. More than $300 million was poured into the contest in what is a solidly red state.
Sheehy, 39, is a former Navy SEAL and businessman working in aerospace.
He has not been without controversy, however, as there have been differing accounts of how a bullet came to be lodged in his right arm.
Elissa Slotkin
Elissa Slotkin will move from the House to the Senate.
She defeated former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) with 48.6 percent of the vote, or 20,217 votes.
Slotkin, 48, has been in Congress since 2019, representing Michigan’s 8th Congressional District between 2019 and 2023 and currently the state’s 7th Congressional District.
She prides herself on working across the aisle.
“Bipartisanship is deeply unsexy to people,” she said at an event this month hosted by the outlet Punchbowl News.
“I think that the most important thing is for people to emulate the behavior that we teach our kids in school, which is ‘treat each other with respect, even when you disagree,’” she added. “Do that in public, do that in private, do that on social media.”
Prior to entering Congress, Slotkin served in the CIA.
Biden Attempts To Sabotage Trump’s ‘Drill Baby Drill’ With Proposed Ban On New Offshore Drilling In Atlantic, Pacific
As early as Monday morning, President Joe Biden is reportedly planning to ban new offshore oil and gas development across 625 million acres (250 million hectares) of US coastal territory, according to Bloomberg sources. The move comes just weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office and could complicate his “Drill, Baby, Drill“ policies aimed at boosting domestic fossil fuel production and reversing the de-growth climate policies implemented by radical Democrats.
Bloomberg sources said the executive order prohibits the sale of new drilling rights across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Simultaneously, Biden will allow new oil and NatGas leasing in the central and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico.
Biden’s decision relies on a provision of the 72-year-old Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This allows the president to withdraw federal waters from future oil and gas leasing. Section 12(a) OCSLA does not include language that would allow any future presidents to reverse the ban.
“That was tested after President Barack Obama banned offshore drilling in parts of the Arctic Ocean and dozens of canyons in the Atlantic Ocean,” the New York Times noted, adding, “During his first term in office, Mr. Trump tried to revoke the ban. In 2019, US District Court Judge Sharon Gleason in Alaska ruled that Mr. Obama’s ban could not be undone without an act of Congress.”
The last-minute executive order, expected sometime Monday, under the guise of ‘climate change,’ is actually just environmental activists in the Biden administration suffering from ‘TDS’ taking one last shot at Trump before he steps into the White House. The goal of the radical left is to derail Trump’s campaign promise to boost domestic energy production.
In early September, Trump stated, “Starting on Day 1, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refiners, new power plants, new reactors, and we will slash the red tape.”
Remember Trump’s campaign promise: “I will cut your energy prices in half within 12 months.”
I will cut the price of ENERGY and ELECTRICITY in HALF within 12 months. We will seriously expedite our environmental approvals, and quickly double our electricity capacity. This will DRIVE DOWN INFLATION, and make AMERICA and MICHIGAN the best place on earth to build a factory… pic.twitter.com/N3UFtLXf8L
To achieve this, the incoming president must rapidly increase oil, NatGas, and coal production across the US, even on federal lands. However, the Biden-Harris team, driven by radical far-left climate policies that effectively function as de-growth while exacerbating inflation, already appears poised to sabotage Trump’s efforts to lower energy costs, which would effectively help to defeat the inflation monster Biden-Harris released.
The artificial hill of pottery shards is puny and localized; the consequences of our system will bring down the system in ways the system is completely blind to.
We’re all familiar with the plot device of the self-destruct sequence counting down while our hero / heroine frantically tries to find the kill switch that turns it off. The system–however we choose to describe it–is self-destructing and there’s no switch to turn it off.
We’re drawn to the notion that cabals and conspiracies are the root source of the system’s ills. If these cabals were exposed and disempowered, then the system would quickly right itself and all would be well again.
Cabals and conspiracies are not the source, they’re a symptom of a deeper, structural self-destruct mechanism, a mechanism we take for granted as the way the world works.
Regardless of ideological label–capitalist, socialist, communist–all systems are markets of some kind with producers, sellers and buyers / consumers. The market may be more or less open, or more or less controlled by the state, warlords or cartels, but in all cases there are producers, sellers and consumers.
In all cases, neither the producer, the seller nor the consumer have any responsibility for the downstream consequences of what’s produced, sold and purchased. Every participant is incentivized to maximize their self-interest without regard for the future consequences of this pursuit of self-interest.
The producer of the plastic bottle has no responsibility for what happens to the bottle after production, the seller has no responsibility for what happens to the bottle after it’s sold, and the consumer who tosses it in the river after consuming the contents has no responsibility for what happens to the bottle once they’re done consuming the product.
The market has no internal, intrinsic responsibility for the consequences of narrow self-interest nor any mechanism that looks beyond the present. The market is blind to future consequences, and imposes no responsibility to do so on any participant.
The only possible result of this system is self-destruction. Consider the Great Pacific Garbage Gyre, the poetic name for a floating mass of plastic and other waste generated by the “growth at any cost” global economy roughly the size of Texas. (See chart below.) This is not the only garbage patch in the planet’s oceans; it’s merely one of the biggest.
Who cares about a floating island of garbage? It’s harmless, right? Indeed. Can the same be said of the “forever” chemicals, the depleted freshwater aquifers, the mountains of electronic and other waste leaking toxic sludge and the rest of the consequences of a system that is blind to everything but “growth at any cost,” self-interest and the eternal Now?
Cabals and conspiracies attract our attention because they are intentionally cloaking the destructive consequences their self-interest is passing on to others. The tobacco cabal worked diligently for decades to obfuscate the deadly consequences of smoking, as the means of maximizing their profits / self-interest.
So let’s identify the cabal that intentionally created the Great Pacific Garbage Gyre to further their self-interest. Do we finger the producers of the 300 million tons of plastics produced annually, or the corporations that sold the 300 million tons of plastics, or the consumers who bought the 300 million tons of plastics?
The waste stream is generated by the system, not a cabal, and the system is constructed of values and what I call the mythology of Progress, a mythology of make-believe and play-acting, in which we watch a video of a group recycling a tiny sliver of the waste generated by global tourism and then declare, “See? Technology is solving the problems created by the system! No worries, it will all get solved by new technologies.”
Absolved by this magical-thinking, we’re free to continue pursuing our part of consequence-free “growth at any cost.” This is the internal logic of the market-system, and it operates the same under any ideological label.
In theory, political rulers are supposed to the future consequences, but rulers only rule by authority granted in the present moment. If their supporters are forced to sacrifice for some distant benefit, they will find someone else to support.
Every civilization that produces “forever” goods ends up creating mountains of waste. Broken pottery shards pile up into artificial hills. But the scale of the modern system is so colossal that the consequences are now planetary, affecting our health and complex systems we don’t fully understand, much less control. The artificial hill of pottery shards is puny and localized; the consequences of our system will bring down the system in ways the system is completely blind to.
Even if technology consolidated the Great Pacific Garbage Gyre at enormous expense, what would we do with the artificial garbage island? And since the system spews out 300 million tons of new plastic every year, a new Great Pacific Garbage Gyre will soon form.
There is no “off” switch on the system’s self-destruct sequence. We’ll only notice, or care, when the system started breaking down under the crushing weight of the consequences that have been piling up and ignored with play-acting solutions such as recycling.
“Ukraine is now ruled by an oligarch who increasingly relies on foreign aid. A state where corruption is rampant and there are no real democratic structures,” former German Finance Minister Oskar Lafontaine told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, cited by news agency V4NA.
The former minister emphasized that independent parties and mass media are banned in Ukraine and establishing democracy and independence would take a long time.
Reports of corruption are common in Ukraine, especially in the military, according to Magyar Nemzet. A recent anti-corruption investigation identified 30 Ukrainian officials suspected of embezzling funds, including employees of housing and maintenance departments, as well as representatives of commercial structures across Ukraine. Prosecutors say 15 of them were members of organized crime groups.
And as Zelensky goes begging for more money from President Joe Biden for the war, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office announced last week that it has uncovered a large-scale scheme to embezzle more than $3.7 million from the state budget — funds that had been meant for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to finance everything from heating and electricity to military infrastructure construction work.
Prosecutors say some of these goods were purchased at significantly higher prices than market prices. Some of the suspects are also accused of abuse of power and negligence in military service. One of the defendants, the head of a regional housing and maintenance department, is suspected of illegally purchasing $285,000 worth of commercial equipment, land and other valuables that were registered in the name of an intermediary.
Magyar Nemzet lists several scandals, including in January 2023 when Deputy Defense Minister Vitaly Polovenko announced that the Ukrainian Defense Ministry had terminated contracts with companies owned by Lviv businessman Ihor Hrynkevich, who was involved in the scandalous procurement of clothing for the armed forces. That same month, the Security Service of Ukraine announced that it had detained a colonel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the CEO of a defense supply company on suspicion of corruption.
In Ukraine, high-level corruption ranks second among the main concerns of Ukrainians after the Russian-Ukrainian war, a survey conducted by the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption revealed. The results of the research previously presented by the Transcarpathian news portal Kárpáti Igaz Szó show that 71.6 percent of the population consider this to be the country’s second-biggest problem, and 73 percent of entrepreneurs think the same.
According to 87.9 percent of the population and 81.3 percent of businesses, the level of embezzlement in the country has increased compared to 2022. Many hold Zelensky responsible, with 47.5 percent of citizens and 48.3 percent of company representatives stating that combating corruption is the responsibility of the president and his office.
In contrast, 36.9 percent of respondents and 32.4 percent of business people say that the anti-corruption agency, or the Supreme Council, is the one that should take action to curb corruption. The responses also included claims that the Council of Ministers and ministries can be held accountable for the spread of corruption.
Corruption in Ukraine has been getting much coverage lately. One widely followed account on X called out the additional billions U.S. President Biden is sending to Ukraine, to which one commenter stated: “Zelensky has genuinely pulled off one of the greatest money heists of all time,” with X owner Elon Musk pitching in, calling Zelensky “All-time champ.”
After avoiding the issue for years, the legacy media are now trying to manufacture public complacency and consent for the government’s digital identity – and by extension, CBDC – agenda.
On July 5, the day Keir Starmer became UK prime minister, we wagered that a Starmer government would intensify the push to roll out a digital identity system in the UK — a country that has, until now, resisted all recent attempts to introduce an identity card system, including, most notably, by Starmer’s backroom consultant and mentor, Tony Blair.
Unfortunately, that prediction has proven to be pretty much on the money. Since taking office, the Starmer government has:
Launched the new Office for Digital Identities and Attributes, with the task of overseeing the country’s digital ID market. As of October 28, almost 50 organizations with DIATF-certified services had been added to the office’s register.
Pledged to roll out a digital ID card for army veterans. As in the US, the UK government is also looking to launch a digital driving license by next year.
Announced plans to introduce digital ID legislation for age verification purposes, meaning that young people will soon be able to use digital ID wallets on their phones to prove they are over 18 when visiting pubs, restaurants and shops.
Now, the propaganda is kicking into gear, and the main selling points, as always, are speed and convenience:
The UK government and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have released a video showcasing their digital identification system, set to be rolled out next year.
In its first commercial, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology chose a British pub as the venue to showcase the, ahem, benefits of digital identity. In Greece, the government is trying to push the EU’s digital identity wallet on the public by making it obligatory for accessing sports stadiums. In Spain, the government is trying to make it a prerequisite for accessing online porn while Australia has just passed a law making it necessary for all Australians to verify their age (presumably with its fledgling digital ID) to access social media.
As we have noted in previous articles, digital identity programs, and the central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) with which they are inseparably tied, are among the most important questions today’s societies could possibly grapple with since they threaten to transform our societies and lives beyond recognition, granting governments and their corporate partners much more granular control over our lives — precisely at a time when democracy is on the decline across the West, authoritarianism is on the rise and public trust in government is sinking to record lows.
Given what is at stake, digital public infrastructure such as digital IDs and CBDCs should be under discussion in every parliament of every land, and every dinner table in every country in the world. That is finally beginning to happen in the UK, but if early signs are any indication it is likely to be less an open debate than a barrage of propagandistic talking points. In the past three weeks alone, there have been gushing articles, op-eds and editorials on the potential wonders of digital identity in the Daily Mail, the Times of London, the Financial Times and Sky News.
In an op-ed for the Daily Mail, Tony Blair, with characteristic zeal for digital public infrastructure (DPI), touts digital identity as a cure-all for just about everything, from bringing down NHS waiting lists to tracking illegal immigrants, to cutting benefit fraud and resolving the UK government’s fiscal crisis:
Around the world, governments are moving in this direction. Of the 45 governments we work with, I would estimate that three-quarters of them are embracing some form of Digital ID. The President of the World Bank, Ajay Banga, has said it is a top priority for the Bank’s work with leaders. But this is only one part of the immense, seismic change which this technological revolution will bring.
It is transforming drug discovery, with a whole raft of new treatments which will give us the chance to shift our healthcare system radically to prevention of disease rather than cure. If we used the potential of facial recognition, data and DNA, we would cut crime rates by not small but game-changing margins. There are interactive education apps now available which could provide personal tutoring for pupils.
But we need the right digital infrastructure to access all of this. And a Digital ID is an essential part of it.
In its article, “Why Britain Needs a Digital ID System“, published last week, the FT concludes that “if Britain wants a truly modern state”, digital identity is “an idea whose time has come”. The article cites estimates from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (who else?) that a digital identity system could boost public finances by about £2bn a year, “mostly by reducing benefits fraud and improving tax collection, on top of broader economic gains”:
It reckons a voluntary system, built in part on the government’s existing — but low-profile — One Login initiative to enable a single sign-in to government services, could be set up within one parliamentary term and 90 per cent of citizens would sign up.
How will they achieve such a large take-up within such a short period, without coer? Yet according to The Times, an overwhelming majority of UK citizens are in favour of digital identity, citing a recent poll for the Times and Justice Commission:
The poll found that more than two thirds of Tory voters backed the introduction of digital ID cards, compared with 12 per cent who opposed it. Sixty per cent of those who voted Labour at the last election were in favour of the policy and 15 per cent were against it. Among Liberal Democrats, 54 per cent supported the idea compared with 16 per cent who did not. For Reform, the split was 59 per cent in favour and 21 per cent opposed.
One should perhaps be wary of reading too much into the results of one poll, especially when said results appear to chime perfectly with the long-term policy goals of the government of the day. Readers may recall that back in 2021, a flurry of polls claimed to show that a majority of Brits support the roll out of digital vaccine certificates, including one by the Serco Institute, an international think tank tied to the Serco Group, a British multinational defence, health, space, justice, migration, customer services, and transport company.
As Blair himself admitted recently, in reality the British public will need “a little coercing persuading” to embrace digital ID. That is presumably where the mainstream media comes in.
What Doesn’t Get Mentioned?
There are so many gaping gaps in the UK media’s no-warts-at-all discussion of digital identity that it’s hard to know where to begin. The FT, to its credit, concedes that “Britain has a dismal record in public sector IT — think of the Post Office Horizon scandal.” What it leaves out is the fact that this disastrous government IT program, which ruined the lives of thousands of Post Office submasters, was the brainchild of Tony Blair, the man whom the media are now treating as an authority on all matters technological.
Nor does the FT article mention that Blair was warned that the Horizon IT system could be flawed before it was rolled out, but chose to proceed nonetheless. When the anticipated problems began surfacing, his government did everything it could to cover them up. Yet somehow Tony Blair and his foundation are still a voice of authority on issues of digital governance.
The Post Office Horizon scandal is just one of a laundry list of IT disasters that successive UK governments have overseen, as our regular UK-based commenter Paul Greenwood recently reminded us:
This is brought to you from the same regime that cannot:
a) get e-Gates at major airports to function,
b) has repeatedly postponed eVisas because they cannot get them to work;
c) has repeatedly postponed Phytosanitary checks on agricultural imports at borders because ……..cannot get it to work…
(That’s not to mention) the Great NHS Computer Disaster…….the largest IT Project in Europe… [that cost more than £1 billion and never launched].
The NHS computer disaster, now used as a case study for how large government IT projects can go spectacularly wrong, costing billions of dollars in squandered public funds, was also launched by Anthony Charles Linton Blair. It involved the participation of IT consulting giants like Accenture and Fujitsu, which was the lead company behind the Post Office Horizon system and has been selected to lead the digital ID scheme, despite a pledge earlier this year to refrain from participating in UK government procurement.
Of the four articles on digital ID, not a single one has offered more than a token paragraph on the potential risks and downsides of digital identity. As the leading industry publication Biometric Update gleefully reported on December 16, the UK press has been “won over” on digital identity, and is now setting about “explaining why” to the British public.
Other issues that are completely ignored or glossed over include:
Privacy. All four of the articles pay lip service to the threat digital identity poses to privacy. The FT argues that “privacy arguments have less force when most adults happily carry smartphones stuffed with apps that can track everything from how many steps they do to what colour socks they buy.” However, as some FT readers pointed out in the comments thread, those apps can be turned off at any time. And whose to say that everyone’s mobile phone is “stuffed with apps”? Mine, for instance, has just two on it (Spotify and WhatsApp).
One thing a near-mandatory digital identity system will ensure is that we will never be without our trusted mobile phones. This sort of “digital coercion” — a term I learnt from the German financial journalist and digital rights activist, Norbert Häring — is on the rise just about everywhere. As Häring reported in September, this should hardly come as a surprise given that one of the main organisations pushing for the rapid rollout of digital public infrastructure (digital ID, digital health passes, instant payment systems, central bank digital currency…) is the corporate-controlled, WEF-partnered United Nations.
Security. Another major issue with digital ID is security, though it is totally glossed over in the MSM articles. While the FT mentions “dangers with hacking and cyber attacks”, it also claims that digital ID could help to combat “identity fraud.” Yet Norway and Sweden are suffering an epidemic of identity theft and cyber crime despite having rolled out digital ID systems years ago that are now thoroughly integrated into people’s daily lives? In Sweden, many cyber crimes involve BankID, the ubiquitous digital authorization system used by nearly all Swedish adults.
India, which is home to the world’s largest biometric-based digital ID system, Aadhaar, has suffered huge security problems, from identity theft to innumerable data breaches, including two in which the data of roughly a billion people were compromised. Much of it ended up for sale on the net. Said data included each person’s biometric identifiers (i.e. their iris and fingerprint scans). If this data is hacked, there is no way of undoing the damage. You cannot change or cancel your iris or fingerprint like you can change a password or cancel a credit card.
In South East Asia, cyber criminals have been targeting iOS users with malware that purloins face scans from the users of Apple devices to break into and pilfer money from bank accounts – thought to be a world first. Likewise, in India there have been reports of bank accounts being emptied using compromised Aadhaar numbers and biometric identifiers.
As we shift into a world where digital public infrastructure (DPI) increasingly dominate our lives, the security of our data, including our biometric identifiers, seems to be increasingly at risk. Of all the UK articles on digital identity in the UK, not a single one mentions the word “biometric” once, perhaps because that might actually scare off some readers.
Exclusion. While often touted as a tool for social and financial inclusion, the reality is that digital identity systems are inherently exclusionary. As the World Economic Forum admits, while verifiable identities “create new markets and business lines” for companies, especially those in the tech industry that will help to operate the systems while hoovering up all the data, they also (emphasis my own) “open up (or close off) the digital world for individuals.”
It is not just the digital world that could end up being closed off; so, too, could much of the analogue world. As the now-ubiquitous WEF infographic suggests, a full-fledged digital identity system, as currently conceived, could end up touching just about every aspect of our lives, from our health (including the vaccines we are supposed to receive) to our money, to our business activities, our private and public communications, the information we are able to access, our dealings with government, the food we eat and the goods we buy.
It could also offer governments and the companies they partner with unprecedented levels of surveillance and control powers.
A Gateway to CBDCs. One other thing that doesn’t get a mention in any of the articles is the role digital identity will play as a gateway to CBDCs. In a 2021, the FT conceded that without a government-backed digital identity system, CBDCs would be unworkable:
“What CBDC research and experimentation appears to be showing is that it will be nigh on impossible to issue such currencies outside of a comprehensive national digital ID management system. Meaning: CBDCs will likely be tied to personal accounts that include personal data, credit history and other forms of relevant information.”
Here’s the former governor of Sweden’s Riksbank, Stefan Invges, openly admitting in 2018 that without “a government-sponsored” digital identity, “that explains in a digital form who you are, you can’t run a CBDC system”:
Sweden’s Central Bank Governor just described a six-step plan on how they would implement their own digital currency:
– 24/7 payments anywhere
– Cross currency & borders
– Update legal tender laws
– Issued directly from the bank
– Digital IDs
– Physical cash incase it fails pic.twitter.com/I8XFGt8u4e
So, if digital identity goes hand-in-hand with CBDCs, then surely any balanced discussion of digital identity must take into consideration the potential implications, both positive and negative, of a CBDC — including its likely programmable features. After all, both the Bank of England and the UK Treasury seem fairly intent on developing a digital pound, which is currently in the design phase. Given that most Brits appear to harbour suspicions rather than excitement about such a prospect, its omission from the media coverage so far is hardly surprising.
Clearly, all discussion of digital identity in the UK media will be anything but balanced — unless, of course, the focus is on the digital identity system being rolled out in China. As we reported in August, some of the UK and the US’s biggest media outlets, including Time magazine, New York Times, the Financial Times, The Economist and the US government-funded Radio Free Asia, recently had a field day warning about the Chinese Communist Party’s planned digital identity system.
The ostensible goal of the new digital ID system is to cut down on the personal information that internet platforms can collect from their users. However, in the subheading to its article, “China’s New Plan for Tracking People Online“, The Economist asks whether the digital ID proposal is “meant to protect consumers or the Communist Party”. The FT cites the concerns of a China-based Western consultant that the proposals could “significantly expand the government’s ability to monitor people’s activity online.”
The exact same thing could be said of the digital identity systems being rolled out by almost all Western governments, but never is. The only time Western news outlets deign to cast a critical look at the emerging digital ID systems is when it is in relation to non-Western countries, in particular China and India. By contrast, when it comes to the systems being developed by Western governments, the media’s stock response is silence. In the case of the UK, however, the public’s deep-rooted scepticism of the need for a national ID system calls for a different approach: blatant propaganda. Whether it works, time will soon tell.
