Month: January 2025

Authored by Stefan Padfield via RealClearMarkets.com,

Americans hate racial discrimination, and they hate inequality borne of government force. However, if you try to solve the problem of inequality by engaging in Orwellian and neo-racist “discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination” (often advanced under the banners of “antiracism” and “DEI” — “diversity, equity, and inclusion”), then you will sooner or later experience the wrath of the people. The recent judicial rebuke of Nasdaq’s diversity rule adds to the drumbeat of feedback alerting corporations to this fact: If corporations want to maintain their social license to operate, then they must stop discriminating on the basis of race.

In National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) v. SEC, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s approval of Nasdaq’s “Board Diversity Rules.” I work for the National Center, and our excellent attorneys at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) described the discredited rules as follows: “These Rules imposed gender, race and sexual orientation quotas on corporate board membership for Nasdaq-listed companies, compelling those that failed to meet their board seat quotas to explain why or face involuntary delisting from the stock exchange.”

You can read the National Center’s press release as well as NCLA’s press release for more detailed analysis of the case.

The short of it is that the SEC exceeded its statutory authority in approving the rule because the rules advanced none of the express purposes of the governing statute, but were instead a thinly veiled attempt to shame corporations into advancing the forced neo-racist social engineering that’s become so popular as “antiracism” the past few years.

In reading some of the subsequent analysis, I was particularly struck by Professor Ann Lipton’s conclusions. In part, Lipton writes that:

“I tend to agree that [the] diversity disclosure rule is not, in fact, intended to help investors price securities or even to adopt governance practices that contribute to wealth creation; it is more in the category of the kind of rule that serves a kind of signaling function, that the corporation is exercising its power responsibly and inclusively.  It’s a display of self-governance and discipline, in a manner that costs corporations very little but perhaps wins them legitimacy.  It benefits companies and investors, but not in the traditional manner by which the securities laws operate; it does so by contributing to their social license to operate.”

It is worth noting that Lipton – with whom I used to co-blog at the Business Law Prof Blog, and who is an excellent scholar – does not even try to defend the diversity rule with the worn out “diversity is good for the bottom line” trope, which has by now been thoroughly debunked to the point that the SEC itself could not mount a defense on that basis (though that doesn’t stop DEI advocates from continuing to claim the business case for diversity has been proven, which is a lie).

Lipton goes on, however, to argue that diversity disclosures support a corporation’s social license to operate. The problem with this assertion, however, is that it boils down to arguing that racial discrimination is good for society. But once one sees through the lovely sounding “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mantra, one is left with the unmistakable conclusion that what is going on in the name of DEI is nothing short of sorting people into buckets based on their race (and other related identity categories), and then allocating resources like jobs, promotions, and financial support on that basis. While it has indeed taken Americans some time to figure this out, they have now done so – and corporations are quite properly dumping DEI fast.

But not all corporations, of course. In reporting on the Nasdaq ruling, it has been noted that the Big 5 (the Big 3 asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, together with the Big 2 proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis) still push corporations to allocate resources on the basis of race and sex in various ways. For a more specific example, one need look no further than Goldman Sachs, which denies its IPO services to companies that don’t meet Goldman’s neo-racist social engineering vision: “In 2021, the bank upped the requirement to two diverse board members, including at least one woman.” In other words, straight white male boards don’t just go to the back of Goldman’s IPO bus, they aren’t even allowed on.

In 2020, we were told a reckoning was coming. Well, it’s now 2024 and the terms of that reckoning have changed. Corporations that continue to force “antiracist” neo-racism on their employees and other stakeholders will be left facing boycotts and lawsuits that will materially harm their bottom line. And don’t let them tell you they weren’t warned — they were.

Finally, let’s keep in mind that addressing inequality doesn’t require neo-racism. Instead, progress can be made by focusing on socio-economic status or geographic and viewpoint diversity. It’s time corporations stopped dividing us on the basis of race and got back to uniting employees around the common goal of providing the best products and services so that the poverty-eradicating engine of free market capitalism can continue to maximize the spread of prosperity.

President Biden was presented with options for a potential US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the scenario that Tehran was deemed by the intelligence community as speeding toward a bomb.

Per a Thursday Axios report citing several insider sources, the Biden admin discussions were based on “if the Iranians move towards a nuclear weapon before Jan. 20″ and came in “a meeting several weeks ago that remained secret until now.”

No final decision was made, the report noted, and was not necessarily prompted by fresh or specific intelligence of a new threat, but was part of “prudent scenario planning” related to if the Islamic Republic reaches Uranium enrichment to 90% purity before Jan. 20.

Western officials have feared that due to fast-moving events in the region, most notably Hezbollah’s leadership being decimated and the collapse of the Assad government, the Iranians could be desperate enough to pursue nuclear weapons in order to restore the security balance in the region, given Israel has clearly come out on top.

Interestingly, months ago when Israel and Iran conducted tit-for-tat direct strikes on each other, President Biden made it clear that the US would not back Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The internal Biden White House ‘scenario planning’ discussions were said to have taken place about a month ago. One source tried to caution that “there are currently no active discussions inside the White House about possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Axios noted.

There is an international consensus that Iran has increased its Uranium enrichment to 60%, putting it within easy striking distance of being able to develop a bomb if it wanted to.

Axios has also pointed out that “Even if Iran decided to build a bomb, it would need to develop a nuclear explosive device or warhead. Israeli intelligence believes that would take at least a year.”

All of these newly revealed executive branch discussions over whether to launch a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites are taking place completely outside of Congressional debate or approval.

The last several US administrations have argued that they don’t need Congressional approval in launching such strikes, whether it be on Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Libya. 

Trump in his first administration tried but failed to bring the troops occupying northeast Syria home, but deeper entanglement in striking Iran could surely draw these troops into a broader conflict. The Pentagon would in that case likely expand its deployed forces in the region as well.

Iran has long maintained it develops only peaceful nuclear energy, and there’s little doubt that after the dramatic events that unfolded in Syria, and with Hezbollah top leadership removed by Israeli attacks (especially the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah), Tehran finds itself on a back foot. 

Some Israeli and Western officials believe that all of this will make Iranian leaders more desperate to ensure they have a final and ultimate defense against any threats (as in rapidly developing a nuke).

But if a soon to be inaugurated Trump were to authorize strikes on Iranian facilities, this would also obviously violate his frequent vows to his voters to not start new wars in the Middle East. The reality is that even ‘limited’ strikes still constitute an act of war. The potential for runaway escalation involving the US, Iran, and Israel would be a much bigger likelihood. 

Authored by Maryanne Demasi via The Brownstone Institute,

It is official. 

The Australian government’s attempt to ram through legislation to combat misinformation online has been blocked after the Greens party announced it would not support the controversial bill.

“We are concerned this bill doesn’t actually do what it needs to do when it comes to stopping the deliberate mass distribution of false and harmful information,” said Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

This unexpected move is said to be the final nail in the coffin for the bill that intended to grant the media watchdog unprecedented regulatory powers to oversee digital content and determine what is ‘misinformation.’

A Domino Effect

During this week, an interesting display of parliamentary dynamics unfolded as an array of Senators announced they would oppose the bill, one by one.

Senators Lidia Thorpe, Tammy Tyrell, David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie, Gerard Rennick, Fatima Payman, and others declared their opposition.

Their reasons varied from concerns over government overreach, and vague definitions of misinformation, to the implications for political discourse and the potential for misuse. Each statement chipped away at the bill’s support, creating a domino effect.

An urgent call to action resulted in significant public outcry. Australians, concerned about their digital rights, flooded senators with emails, petitions, and social media campaigns.

The sheer volume of these communications likely played a crucial role in shaping the Senators’ views.

The vigorous debate also garnered international attention.

Michael Shellenberger, an American author and free speech campaigner, visited Australia to warn that these “totalitarian” laws would have implications for democracy, and blur the line between regulating harmful content and stifling dissent.

Nov 20, 2024 – Michael Shellenberger on Sky News Australia

According to Shellenberger, misinformation should be countered with more and better information, not through suppression or censorship.

Elon Musk, whose influence in the digital sphere is undeniable, especially after taking the helm of X, expressed similar views, and has been vocal about his disdain for what he perceives as “overreach” in digital governance, labelling the failed bill as “fascist.”

Digital ID for Under 16s

It has not quelled the government’s enthusiasm for its proposed ban of social media access for individuals under 16. This bill, which introduces a mandatory age verification process, has implications for digital identity and privacy.

The rapid legislative push on Thursday only allowed a 24-hour window for public submissions, a move to fast-track the controversial legislation without due public scrutiny.

The bill would require all Australians to undergo identity verification to use social media, raising alarms about the collection and potential misuse of personal data. The process could involve gathering biometric data, posing a risk for data breaches or misuse.

Today, Musk described the legislation as a “backdoor way to control access to the internet,” which promises to punish platforms, including X, with steep fines if they allow children under age 16 to hold social media accounts.

The combination of these legislative proposals (the misinformation bill, and the digital ID for under-16s), paints a picture of a government intent on tightening control over what you can say and read online.

What Happens Now?

After this week’s news, the Labor government must now retreat and reassess.

It could decide to abandon the legislative approach altogether and focus on other means like public education campaigns or working with social media platforms on voluntary codes of practice. But this is unlikely.

The government will most probably go back to the drawing board, either to revise the bill with more stringent protections for free speech or to explore alternative, less direct methods of addressing misinformation, hoping to revive the bill in the new year.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Following the December 8 overthrow of Bashar al-Assad amid the rapid takeover of Syria by al-Qaeda splinter group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the big question for the incoming Trump administration in the US will be whether to finally pull American forces from Syria, after they’ve been there for a half-decade.

For now it seems US troops are not only maintaining their bases in the northeast, where Syria’s oil and gas fields are located, but are actually expanding the Pentagon presence, and very close to the border with Turkey.

On Thursday the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), which has long been known as an anti-Assad opposition outlet in exile, said that US forces are making preparations to establish a new military base in the northern city of Ain Al-Arab, or Kobani.

The outlet cited its observers on the ground who say US forces brought in a convoy of 50 trucks carrying cement blocks to areas of northeast Syria controlled by the US proxy Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF, a group largely dominated by Syrian Kurds).

Ain Al-Arab is a district of Aleppo province in northern Syria. The area around Aleppo saw sporadic fighting between Syrian Kurds and HTS jihadists throughout December.

“SOHR activists have reported seeing the convoy on Al-Hasakah-Al-Raqqah highway, while it was heading to Ain Al-Arab area (Kobani) in the eastern countryside of Aleppo,” the report described, and noted that a SDF military vehicle was providing escort.

“According to SOHR sources, this comes as a part of US forces’ efforts to boost their bases and establish a new military base in Ain Al-Arab in light of the growing security and military tension in that region.” Russia’s Sputnik is also reporting the development.

The #US Army begins transporting cement and logistical equipment from #Hasakah Governorate towards #Kobani to build a large military base there near the #Turkish border. pic.twitter.com/VXFhzVimxe

— MOHAMMAD HASAN (@MHJournalist) January 1, 2025

The SOHR report provided additional details strongly suggesting a new US military base on this border region near Turkey:

Yesterday, SOHR sources reported that “International Coalition” forces brought a convoy of logistic reinforcements including premade chambers, surveillance cameras, cement blocks, fuel tanks and digging machineries towards Ain Al-Arab (Kobani).

According to reliable SOHR sources, the digging and drilling will start tomorrow and more military reinforcements such as soldiers, weapons, armored vehicles, radars and anti-aircraft weapons will be brought.

The border region has for years seen clashes between Turkish-backed militant groups and the US armed and trained SDF. Turkish warplanes have also at times bombed Syrian Kurdish positions.

The United States is in a precarious position in Syria given that almost no group – with the exception of the Kurds – wants US troops occupying Syrian territory. Turkey has long accused Washington of supporting ‘terrorists’ given it sees the SDF as an extension of the outlawed PKK.

Damascus’ new HTS rulers are certainly going to want access to the country’s oil and gas fields, in order to deliver on promises of getting electricity and fuel back up and running for the population. The US has long held on to these energy resources for leverage, and to starve the prior Assad government of its resources, also amid sanctions. What will Trump do this time around?

Authored by T.J.Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

A new bill introduced to Florida’s state legislature intends to prohibit illegal immigrants from being able to utilize the civil court system to file lawsuits and other legal actions.

 

Titled HB 71: Civil Actions Brought by Unauthorized Aliens, the single-page bill stated, “an unauthorized alien may not commence a civil action,” using the definition of “unauthorized aliens” as stated in the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

It was filed in Florida’s State House of Representatives by Rep. Joel Rudman on Dec. 27, arguing that someone who enters the country illegally has no legal standing to file lawsuits, be it for a slip and fall or malpractice.

“If you are in Florida illegally, then you should not have access to our courts,” he said on X.

”You have no legal standing to sue anyone here, since you were not even supposed to be here. American citizens and legal immigrants have had enough.”

The Republican argued in a press release that the justice system was  already “drowning under a sea of frivolous lawsuits,” and Americans could not afford illegal immigrants the chance to “use our courts as their free lottery ticket.”

This bill is only limited to civil court, meaning they would retain their rights if a crime were committed against them.

There is no companion bill in the state Senate at the time of this article’s publication.

Rudman stepped down from his seat in Tallahassee on Jan. 1 to take his shot at running in Florida’s First Congressional District’s special election to replace former Rep. Matt Gaetz in Washington, D.C. He will be going up against several candidates, including Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, Jimmy Patronis, who has already secured President-elect Donald Trump’s endorsement.

However, Republicans hold a supermajority in both the Florida legislature, which suggests the bill like this will easily reach Gov. Ron DeSantis’s desk, considering the GOP’s stance on illegal immigration.

The Epoch Times has reached out to Florida’s Democratic Party for comment on this bill.

Rudman also mentioned in his press release that he was the husband of a legal immigrant and said his state welcomes immigrants who come legally through proper channels.

If passed, the bill will go into effect July 1.

The Florida House of Representatives has yet to release its schedule for January as of this article’s publication.

According to the Florida Senate’s website, all requests for general bill drafts, as well as companion bills, must be submitted by 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 25.

Live Feed: 

Ongoing: I-85 has been closed for a bomb threat involving a semi truck in Greenville County, South Carolina https://t.co/LlGTTdKSLF

— AcidTigerX (@AcidTigerX) January 2, 2025

*   *   * 

Concerns over terrorism are intensifying in the wake of the Bourbon Street massacre and the Las Vegas Cybertruck bombing. Adding to the anxiety, police are now investigating a potential bomb in a tractor-trailer on a major highway in South Carolina. 

Local media WSPA reports all lanes of Interstate 85 are blocked in both directions between exits 42 and 44 near White Horse Road in Greenville County. 

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division confirmed to WSPA that bomb squad personnel are responding to a potential bomb inside a tractor-trailer. Details are limited.

“Situation unfolding in Greenville Co South Carolina that’s closed I-85 | Sources tell me it involves an 18-wheeler. Driver apparently pulled over and stated he has a bomb. Multiple agency incident,” WXIA’s Cody Alcorn wrote on X. 

Situation unfolding in Greenville Co South Carolina that’s closed I-85 | Sources tell me it involves an 18-wheeler. Driver apparently pulled over and stated he has a bomb. Multiple agency incident. Update as I get additional details. pic.twitter.com/aOgyin1ITT

— Cody Alcorn (@CodyAlcorn) January 2, 2025

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster wrote on X:

pic.twitter.com/SSKM3wmWXm

— Gov. Henry McMaster (@henrymcmaster) January 2, 2025

Traffic nightmare. 

Active bomb threat on I-85 in Greenville…what is going on in this country?!?! Where is our president?!?! pic.twitter.com/QyzalXQuWW

— Jack Stott (@jackstott21) January 2, 2025

UPDATE | Exits are blocked and traffic is backed up for miles. pic.twitter.com/mOcHyQXhy7

— Cody Alcorn (@CodyAlcorn) January 2, 2025

*Developing… 

Authored by Ana Paula Pereira via CoinTelegraph.com,

The year 2024 will be remembered as a landmark chapter in crypto history. From surging mainstream demand for Bitcoin-regulated financial products to an expected crypto-friendly White House, the Web3 industry has made significant strides despite facing notable challenges along the way.

With its resilience finally paying off, the industry is now setting its sights on another promising year as hopes for regulatory clarity converge with years of innovation and development.

Experts are closely watching emerging trends poised to not only redefine the crypto landscape but also affect the world as a whole. To explore what lies ahead, Cointelegraph has compiled a list of key crypto trends expected to take center stage in the months to come.

RWAs: The use case to watch in 2025

If you have never heard about it, make a note of this word: tokenization. It refers to the art of turning traditional assets into tokens, making them tradable, even in small fractions. 

Developers, investors and companies from a range of industries were enraptured by the tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs) fever in 2024, as it unlocks liquidity for traditionally nonliquid assets, such as real estate, and allows people around the world to access investments not always accessible to small investors. 

“RWAs are the use case to watch in 2025. The value of tokenized assets will double in the year,” predicts Sergey Gorbunov, CEO of Interop Labs and co-founder of Axelar Network. 

Gorbunov’s view is followed by venture capital firm a16z. In its annual report on trends in the crypto and blockchain industry, the VC said that “tokenizing unconventional assets could redefine income generation in the digital age.”

According to data from RWA.xyz, the total value of tokenized assets now stands at nearly $13.9 billion, a 67% jump from $8.3 billion in January.

Real-world assets onchain are now worth over $13.8 billion. Source: RWA.xyz

Financial institutions are now looking at risk frameworks for tokenized assets. In other words, they want to ensure compliance with legal requirements, security risks and market volatility issues are addressed. According to Gurbunov:

“Multiple major financial institutions will develop the risk frameworks needed to issue RWAs that can move across interconnected, public blockchains.”

ID checks by AI agents

Several protocols have been working on ways to provide ID verification onchain over the past few years. 

One of the advancements in this field is undoubtedly the emergence of zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs, a technology that allows a human to prove themselves without revealing any personal information. Startups developing this technology include Worldcoin, ONCHAINID and RisedID, to name a few. 

Moving forward, onchain biometric verification is expected to be increasingly powered by artificial intelligence. In other words, you will be checked for your identity autonomously onchain by an AI. This may sound like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it’s just an example of AI and blockchain coming together.

“We expect to see automated biometrics and/or government ID checks become the norm, not the exception,” said Civic CEO Chris Hart. He continued: 

“As AI agents increasingly act on behalf of users, robust identity verification and authorization frameworks will be crucial for controlling what these agents can do and for how long — especially in financial transactions.”

DePINs to take off

Community-driven energy services, online storage and internet connectivity are already a reality through decentralized physical infrastructure networks, or DePINs. 

DePINs allow users to become stakeholders in the network, meaning they can own a piece of the infrastructure they use, thus creating new opportunities for financial inclusion.

Borderless Capital, a venture firm pouring millions of dollars into DePIN protocols, claims the sector holds “the most compelling opportunity” in Web3.

“It is the only Web3 vertical generating revenue and fundamentals with zero correlation to the crypto market, delivering real-world value,” Álvaro Gracia, partner at Borderless, told Cointelegraph.

According to data aggregated by DePIN.Ninja, the market capitalization of DePIN protocols has exceeded $50 billion.

More yields from Bitcoin

Finally, it is impossible to discuss 2025 without mentioning Bitcoin. Once a discredited asset, Bitcoin has made significant strides over the past decade, earning adoption within Wall Street and solidifying its position in the financial landscape.

While developers still struggle with possible upgrades to a network that now has more stakeholders than ever before, startups are exploring alternative ways to unlock yield generation for holders.

“This is the natural need for holders, including the retail and institution. This is the native demand for holders,” said Kevin He of Bitlayer, a Bitcoin layer-2 protocol backed by asset manager firm Franklin Templeton.

According to He, not only investors but also large holders of BTC, such as MicroStrategy, are looking for additional sources of revenue through the fusion of Bitcoin and decentralized finance. 

According to He, Bitcoiners could soon generate annual returns of up to 40% on their holdings.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) announced Wednesday the suspension of Al-Jazeera’s operations in the Palestinian West Bank, citing alleged violations of Palestinian laws and ‘interference’. 

The major Qatar-based outlet is accused of “manipulation, interference in internal affairs, and dissemination of misleading and incendiary reports,” according to a statement in the official Palestinian news agency WAFA.

The broadcaster has been further blamed for “reports that were deceiving and stirring strife” in the context of the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) effort to crackdown on unauthorized armed groups.

For the past more than two weeks the PA has laid police siege to the Jenin refugee camp in an effort to root out the Jenin Brigade and associated factions. The PA has called the groups “outlaws” and “Iranian gangs” which are operating in the camp.

At least nine Palestinians have been killed as a result of the assault, including reportedly children. The PA had already banned Al Jazeera from reporting from inside Jenin amid the crisis.

Al Jazeera issued a Thursday statement saying it was “shocked by this decision” and is urging an immediate reversal of the temporary ban, for which there hasn’t been a timetable. It has confirmed its coverage has moved to Jordan.

The outlet has charged the PA with “an attempt to hide the truth about events in the occupied territories, especially what is happening in Jenin and its camps.”

Months ago Israeli commandoes raided Al Jazeera’s West Bank offices and seized equipment and ordered the bureau closed.

As early as October 2023, soon after the Oct.7 Hamas terror attacks, Israel moved to ban Al Jazeera from having offices in Tel Aviv or operating anywhere in Israel.

WATCH| The moment Palestinian Authority security forces raided Al Jazeera’s bureau in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, forcing it to stop broadcasting. pic.twitter.com/UoerXDc0sl

— Quds News Network (@QudsNen) January 1, 2025

This came on the heels of Israeli government approving “emergency regulations” giving it the power to shut down foreign news agencies which are deemed to be acting against the “security of the state”. 

On Thursday a United Nations spokesperson urged the Palestinian Authority to reverse its decision to ban Al-Jazeera, in a rare moment.

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

The  Marines, and now the Air Force and Navy, have cleared their Osprey fleets to fly after all U.S.-operated Ospreys were grounded earlier this month. Clearing the Ospreys involves implementing “risk mitigation controls,” part of which includes a more rigorous inspection regime and careful monitoring of hours flown.

However, while the Ospreys are once again flying, the airplane’s root problem driving these groundings has not been addressed. And the most recent groundings have once again thrust the Osprey’s long history of problems and crashes into the spotlight, with the most recent crash killing eight marines occurring in November of 2023.

As was the case with earlier groundings, the most recent grounding appears to be related to key parts of its complex tiltrotor transmissions not being able to stand up the stresses placed on them and growing weaker at a much faster rate than expected. As this issue affects all Ospreys, the Pentagon grounded all the planes on Dec. 9.

That the Osprey is so problem-plagued 43 years after Bell and Boeing began joint development of it begs several questions. The first is, with well over $10 billion expended on research, development, and testing, and the first test flight taking place way back in 1989, why does the Osprey continue to be so beset with issues, incidents, groundings, and crashes? And the second is, why taxpayers paid tens of billions to acquire V-22s that are unreliable, unsafe, and have arguably delivered less capability than the helicopters and airplanes they are supposedly replacing? The final question is whether it’s time to consider the V-22’s future from a sunk cost basis, and move away from using V-22s and back towards using more capable helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

Perhaps a tiltrotor could be designed that is reliable and safe, but after decades of accidents and mechanical failures it should be obvious that the V-22 design is critically flawed and unreliable. Consequently, perhaps, just perhaps, it is time to consider that their adoption has resulted in a net loss of capability, and look at limiting their use only to the small subset of missions and tasks that truly can only be performed by them.

Elaborating, the attraction of the Osprey is that it can perform the duties of both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. This mindset creates the temptation to look for opportunities to replace helicopters with Ospreys in the belief that not only do you get the benefits of a helicopter,  but you get the range and speed of an airplane. Likewise, by replacing fixed-wing aircraft with Ospreys, you not only get an airplane, but you get the capabilities of a helicopter.

This certainly sounds like a big win. But even if the Osprey was safe and reliable, and did not cost so much to operate, the fact is that a tiltrotor aircraft is a lousy helicopter, and is at best a mediocre airplane.

Why Does the Osprey Make Such a Poor Helicopter?

Firstly, while the Osprey is a tiltrotor aircraft that can ascend and descend vertically, the fact that the vicious downwash  generated by its proprotors is much more concentrated and intense than the downwash generated by a helicopter’s rotor(s) makes it inferior to a helicopter when it comes to executing a wide variety of tasks and missions.

Perhaps the biggest weakness relative to a helicopter is that an Osprey’s intense proprotor wash and hot exhaust strikes the ground with much greater force, throwing up rocks, sand, soil, and in some cases even helipads. This is not only a danger to anyone nearby, but the thrown-up ground materials can potentially be ingested by the engine, damaging it and causing it to fail. The obscuring cloud created by an Osprey can be so intense that the pilot cannot safely land due to lack of visibility.

The intense downwash also means that missions that require hovering, such as air-sea rescues and fast insertions involving troops repelling to the ground, and moving cargo by slings or nets, must be executed from a higher hover height. This, combined with the intensity of the proprotor downwash, makes  Ospreys inferior to helicopters for such missions.

Additionally, hover time for Ospreys enveloped in the obscuring cloud is limited to 60 seconds or less. And due to heat issues, its hover time in general is far less than that of a helicopter.

Further, the Osprey’s intense propwash and engine exhaust damages ship decks perfectly suited to handle helicopters. Consequently, costly deck modifications have had to be made and/or will have to be made to our amphibious warships, which were designed to support helicopters. This is just another example of a helicopter’s vastly superior landing zone flexibility.

Finally, when an Osprey loses power, unlike a helicopter it cannot safely autorotate and its gliding ability is much inferior to that of a fixed-wing airplane. So in general, when loss of power occurs, its passengers and crew are less likely to survive, which is why the Osprey has earned the name “widow maker.”

Why the Osprey Is a Mediocre Airplane

The main reason that the Osprey will always at best be a mediocre airplane is that along with being more complex and less reliable, its proprotors are much less efficient than standard propellers. This lack of efficiency translates into burning more fuel and a lower top speed compared to comparably sized turboprops with standard-sized propellers.

All of the above does not negate that there are some missions for which a reliable and safe tiltrotor  aircraft would be the best option. But given the V-22’s  history and its $80,000 cost per flying hour,  the services using V-22s need to take a hard look at their decision to replace reliable, more cost-effective, and arguably more capable helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft with the Ospreys

Given the V-22’s ongoing unresolved problems and their high operational costs, the Pentagon should consider the V-22 a sunk cost and only use Ospreys for the very limited sets of  tasks and missions that can truly only be executed by the V-22. All other tasks and missions should be migrated over time to the helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft best suited to fulfill them.

Finally, a very hard look should be taken of the Army’s plans to move away from helicopters to a brand-new unproven tiltrotor, the V-280 Valor.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Update (1640ET): Johnson says he thinks he will win the speakership on the first ballot.

“I think it’s going to be okay… We’ll have maybe one no vote. I think we get it done on the first round. Certainly hopeful for that.”

*  *  *

Two weeks after President-elect Donald Trump raged at Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) for [checks notes] demanding a fiscally conservative debt ceiling increase, Trump and Roy are meeting ahead of Friday’s vote to reelect Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) as Speaker of the House.

Johnson is of course an establishment darling who folds like a wet napkin when it comes to playing chicken with Democrats, however Trump has thrown his support behind him because there’s no other viable candidate who could secure enough votes without sparking a grand-mal meltdown in the House.

Total pussies.

In any event, Johnson’s opponents on the right, members of the Freedom Caucus, are very ‘undecided’ with the exception of Thomas Massie (R-KY), who says MJ is “not fit for the job.” Many in the caucus have been seen walking into Johnson’s office to negotiate…

Freedom Caucus members including Reps Andrew Clyde, Ralph Norman, Michael Cloud, Victoria Spartz, Andy Ogles and Andy Harris just walked into Speaker Mike Johnson’s office per @sarahnferris

Norman on way in says he’s still undecided

CNN latest holdout list: pic.twitter.com/MggXbDr8iv

— haleytalbotcnn (@haleytalbotcnn) January 2, 2025

…While Roy met with Trump this afternoon.

NEW — TRUMP has spoken with CHIP ROY ahead of the speaker vote

me, @bresreports @MZanona

First on @PunchbowlNews text alert

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) January 2, 2025

 Johnson has received public support from several Senate Republicans, meanwhile.

“My friend [Johnson] has done an incredible job in the House, and I’m glad he’s at the helm there as Congress looks forward to growing our economy and safeguarding our communities in the new year,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) on X.

My friend @SpeakerJohnson has done an incredible job in the House, and I’m glad he’s at the helm there as Congress looks forward to growing our economy and safeguarding our communities in the new year.

— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) December 30, 2024

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) wrote on X, “I agree with President Trump that [Johnson] is the right man to lead. He’s a committed conservative and a man of integrity.”

We expect the Freedom Caucus to walk out with a few promises and Johnson’s election to go smoothly, but, as always, we shall see…