iftttwall

Ever since the Covid-19 pandemic turned the world upside down in 2020, it seems like the world has been in constant crisis mode.

In each of the past few years, Statista’s Felix Richter points out that the overwhelming feeling towards the end of December has been: the next year can only get better.

With the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East dragging on, the effects of the global cost of living crisis still lingering and political upheaval in countries like France, Germany and South Korea, 2024 offered enough reasons to be downbeat about the state of the world once again. And yet, according to a recent Ipsos survey, people were slightly less gloomy at the end of 2024 than they have been for the past four years.

65 percent of the 23,721 adults surveyed across 33 countries said that 2024 was a bad year for their country and 51 percent said that the year had been bad for them and their family. While that sounds pretty bleak, it still marks an improvement over the past four years, with global “optimism” rising to the highest level since 2019.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The change in mood was particularly noticeable in Argentina, Sweden, Belgium, Poland and China, with each of the five countries seeing double-digit decreases in the share of people saying the year had been bad for their country.

At the other end of the scale, countries like India, South Korea, France and Mexico saw the mood worsen in 2024 compared to 12 months ago.

Overall, the picture is still pretty grim, with more than 70 percent of respondents saying that 2024 had been a bad year for their country in South Korea, France, Great Britain, Canada, Germany and India, among others.

Of the 33 countries included in the survey, just three saw a majority disagreeing that the year has been bad: Singapore, Switzerland and China.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The Austrian government is understood to have initiated a process to review the asylum status of Syrians following the fall of the Assad regime, a move that could impact up to 40,000 people.

As reported by the Exxpress news outlet, the Federal Office for Asylum and Immigration (BFA) has sent letters to Syrians who have been in Austria for less than five years, questioning their continued need for protection.

The letters, citing the “changed circumstances” in Syria, state that recipients no longer need to fear political persecution. Those affected have been asked to attend appointments where they must provide further justification for their asylum claims, including evidence of integration such as employment, children enrolled in school, or other contributions to Austrian society.

BFA Director Gernot Maier clarified that asylum protection can generally be revoked within five years if the original reasons for granting it have fundamentally changed. “As soon as a well-founded basis for the decision is available, the decision in these cases is made immediately,” the letter from the BFA stated.

Chancellor Karl Nehammer instructed Interior Minister Gerhard Karner to suspend all ongoing Syrian asylum applications and review existing cases, but Maier acknowledged the “very volatile situation” in Syria, which currently prevents any definitive decisions on deportations.

However, it appears that Vienna is preparing the groundwork to expedite repatriations once the political landscape in Syria becomes clearer.

The Syrian community in Austria, numbering over 95,000 as of early 2024, is predominantly concentrated in Vienna and represents the eighth-largest foreign group in the country.

Austrian newspaper Heute reported up to 30,000 Syrians took to the streets in Vienna after the fall of the deposed former Syrian president to celebrate his demise at the hands of Islamist rebels, though police figures placed the number at 12,000.

FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl welcomed the government’s actions, claiming the departure of Assad eliminated the need for Syrians to remain in Austria. In a social media post, Kickl declared, “Your homeland needs you now,” and argued that the return of Syrians would provide “significant relief” to Austria’s social system. He also referenced Syrian migrants’ overrepresentation in criminal statistics, adding, “Even one or two knife specialists will disappear from Austria.”

The debate has reignited tensions over migration policy in Austria and across Europe, where leaders in several countries are calling for Syrians to return home. Austrian officials have floated the idea of offering €1,000 payments and assistance with travel and documentation for voluntary returns. However, those without leave to remain or with criminal convictions face forced deportation.

Read more here…

Authored by Jim Jatras via The Ron Paul Institute

“I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.” – Winston Churchill, 1942

Many Americans, even a lot who never much cared for Donald Trump, voted for him in part because they believed – or at least hoped – that he would be, relatively speaking, a peace candidate compared to the hideous Biden-Harris record. To his credit, Trump’s first term was the only US presidency since Jimmy Carter’s not to get us embroiled in a new conflict, though he failed to extricate us from Afghanistan or Syria.

Such hopes need to be balanced against other aspects of Trump’s earlier tenure in office. Notably, on Ukraine, he oversaw provision of lethal aid to Kiev that had been denied by Barack Obama. Put another way, it was under Trump that Ukraine built up a NATO army in all but name, setting the stage for the February 2022 escalation of the conflict that had been brewing since the 2014 coup midwifed by Victoria Nuland.

Trump has said he would end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours, indeed, even before he takes office. While never unveiling anything resembling an actual plan, he has indicated that his “art of the deal” trademark bluster and threats would be applied to both Ukraine (terminate all aid if Kiev refuses to negotiate!) and Russia (vastly increase aid to Ukraine if Moscow refuses to negotiate!). The supposedly “transactional” President-elect is seemingly unflustered by little details like how, if both Russia and Ukraine balk at talks, he could simultaneously increase and cut off US assistance. Five-dimensional chess indeed!

While the thought of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence is balm for every peace-loving soul, the rest of Trump’s announced second-term team is anything but reassuring: Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Michael Waltz as National Security Adviser, with supporting roles at the NSC by Sebastian Gorka and special envoy for Ukraine-Russia Keith Kellogg, all of whom have a record of the standard bellicose chest-thumping with respect to evil, evil Russia and our cuddly “democratic” “ally” Ukraine.

As Trump prepares to take office next month, one thing should always be kept in mind: like Winston Churchill with respect to the British Empire, Donald Trump has not returned to the Oval Office in order to preside over the liquidation of the Global American Empire (the GAE). Rather, all indications are that he seeks to disengage the US from the Ukraine conflict in a way that avoids total, humiliating defeat for NATO (and, probably, that organization’s long-overdue dissolution) in order to “pivot” to the Middle East and a looming war with Iran following a return to his “maximum pressure” policy. The encore will be the Really, Really Big Showdown with China. Hence Trump’s call for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine.

What of the other side? Russian President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and other top Kremlin and Duma figures have made it clear that Moscow has had enough with “non-agreement capable” Washington after repeated Western deceptions: on NATO expansion (“not one inch eastward”), the status of Kosovo (UN Security Council Resolution 1244 providing for its autonomy within Serbia, trashed by the US-sponsored unilateral declaration of independence in 2008), the February 2014 power-sharing agreement in Ukraine between then-President Viktor Yanukovich and his opposition (a dead letter before even one night had passed), the February 2015 Minsk 2 agreement on the status of the Donbass that was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council (but later admitted by Angela Merkel and other western leaders to have been a ruse to allow time to build up Kiev’s forces for a Blitzkrieg), and the failed April 2022 Ukraine-Russia agreement initialed at Istanbul (torpedoed by Boris Johnson with US backing).

Accordingly, the Russians have made it clear that they will accept no temporary truces, no ceasefires, no more promises made to be broken like piecrusts, no pauses as cynical tricks to get the Russians to forgo their current and growing military advantage. (Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president and the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, even suggested recently that new regions could soon be added to Russia. Putin recently re-floated the concept of Novorossiya, “New Russia,” a region of Imperial Russia that included Odessa.) No, they insist, there must be either a genuine, definitive, binding settlement that ensures a lasting peace based on mutual security, or Russian forces will press on until their objectives – notably “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine – are achieved militarily. Such an outcome would mean at least replacement of the current regime in Kiev and, more likely, the end of Ukraine’s statehood.

For the West, this would constitute a total debacle of Afghanistan-like proportions effectively signaling the end of US hegemony in Europe, the GAE’s crown jewel. What can Trump offer the Russians to avoid that?

Moscow’s latest peace proposal was voiced by Putin in June 2024, in which he specified that he’s willing to negotiate at any time but will not halt military operations until Kiev withdraws its forces from the four oblasts that, in addition to Crimea, Moscow claims to be part of Russia: Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson, Notably, this would include the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson, under Kiev’s control as of this writing. (In fact, contrary to propaganda from the usual suspects, Putin has never rejected talks, unlike Ukrainian former-president-but-still-playing-the-role Vladimir Zelensky, who in October 2022 issued a decree forbidding talks with Russia as long as Putin is in office.)

Putin’s June proposal was dismissed out of hand by Kiev and its western backers. Given Moscow’s rejection of a ceasefire at the conflict’s line of control, things are at a seeming impasse.

But are they?

With the rapid and accelerating advance of Russian forces, the physical distinction between the military line of confrontation (a freeze line rejected by Moscow) and the constitutional limits of the four oblasts (evacuation of which Moscow demands) becomes less every day. That is, the territorial question – which Russia has never stated to be paramount in its goals for launching its “Special Military Operation” (SMO) in the first place – becomes less of an issue.

Rather, the real question for the Trump Administration becomes a political one of how much wiggle room there is in the Russians’ stated determination not to rely on more promises of the sort that have been repeatedly broken in the past. Put another way: if Trump-Lucy wants to avoid utter defeat in the European theater of the worldwide confrontation between the GAE and BRICS-Eurasia, so he can get on to mixing it up with Iran and China, can he dupe Putin-Charlie Brown into taking another run at the football?

I think he at least has a good shot at it. Keep in mind that, despite the ubiquitous narrative, Putin is neither a dictator nor a hardliner toward the West. Regarding the former, he’s a balancer in a system that still retains many (too damn many, in my opinion) western liberals dying to see the day they can again send their snotty kids back to elite western universities and their fat wives and svelte mistresses shopping at Harrods, while saluting a rainbow flag raised over Lenin’s Mausoleum. As to the latter, as lately demonstrated by his restrained response to ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles launched into pre-1991 Russia by NATO personnel from Ukrainian territory, Putin has shown a dogged determination to come to an understanding with his Western “partners” long after it became clear to everyone (except him, evidently) that they have no intention of ever getting along with him or Russia but are hell-bent on destroying both. (“Hello, Volodya? It’s me, Bashar. I’m out front of Resurrection Gate, near Zhukov’s statue …)

Far from the “shock and awe” demonstrated by the United States in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, etc., or Netanyahu’s in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, Putin’s light military footprint in Ukraine – the limited size of the incursion force, declining to destroy the Dnepr bridges, limited (but now increasing) attacks on infrastructure, the pullback of Russian forces from Kiev as a good will gesture before the 2022 Istanbul talks, not eliminating Kiev regime leaders who’d kill him if they could – all point to a strategy based on accepting a reasonable deal if one might be presented, not on settling things by force of arms, 1945-style. (It’s largely forgotten now that at the outset of the conflict foreign embassies decamped from Kiev and moved to Lvov in the far west, and consideration was even given for the Zelensky regime to abandon Ukraine entirely and establish a government in exile, in the expectation that Russia would quickly overrun the whole country – then face an Afghan-type insurgency that would bleed Russia white, leading to regime-change in Moscow.) Unexpectedly, the Russians didn’t behave as the West had anticipated. Instead, it’s clear their approach was “pedagogical” from the start: show the West they mean business so they’ll come to the table. It is also suggested that a deal, not a military resolution, would be preferable to Putin’s BRICS partners, whose opinion he can’t afford to ignore.

The frustration this approach has caused in the Russian military and in large sectors of the public is well known. That said, as observed by Moscow-based John Helmer, Putin may deem that his high levels of public support allow him to accept a settlement that falls short of, or at least redefines, his SMO goals as originally stated. It’s an open question whether that support could be sustained when (inevitably, in my opinion) the West contemptuously disregards its obligations under whatever is agreed-to.   

Some say Putin has finally learned his lesson about the West. Others say not, that he would jump at any remotely reasonable transaction proffered by Trump & Co., Inc. We will soon see.

Looking at the longstanding pattern of Putin’s Kremlin and the smoke signals from Washington, mediated by the good offices of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the contours of a kind of Minsk 3 or Istanbul-double-plus-good “deal” are already discernable:

1. A ceasefire in early 2025: Ukrainian forces would evacuate whatever shrinking part, if any, of the four oblasts they might still hold, plus of Russia’s Kursk region if any Ukrainians are still there. A Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) would be established. (Some ad hoc arrangement might have to be reached on the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson, if the Russians hadn’t taken them yet. Perhaps they would remain under Ukrainian administration inside the DMZ, “claimed by Russia.”)

2. Moscow would continue to regard the areas it holds as sovereign Russian territory. The rest of the world would still deem them Ukrainian under temporary Russian occupation, similar to how the US regarded the Baltic Republics of the USSR. Both sides would tolerate a rough balance between Zaporozhye and Kherson cities (claimed by Russia but under Ukrainian administration) and the rest of the oblasts and Crimea (claimed by Ukraine but under Russian administration).

3. As Trump has suggested, supposedly non-NATO European Union peacekeepers would be deployed on the Ukrainian side of the DMZ (with Moscow’s agreement, contrary to astute observers’ insistence that the Russians would never allow it), subject to strict limits on numbers, weaponry, etc. These limits, of course, would not be honored (see Lucy and Charlie Brown, above).

4. NATO membership for Ukraine world be deferred indefinitely. This is an obvious Lucy lie that Moscow would pretend means permanent neutrality. In fact, rump Ukraine would be treated as a NATO state in all but name but not receive formal membership.

5. Security guarantees: the US, NATO, Russia would sign an updated version of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (possibly in the form of a treaty, which the original Budapest Memorandum wasn’t) enshrined in a Security Council Resolution, guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity (taking into account “provisional arrangements”), its neutral status, and a bar of foreign troops on Ukraine’s territory (except those permitted in this agreement); parallel provisions would be put into the Ukrainian constitution. It goes without saying that these Lucy assurances would not be honored by the West any more than were past formal commitments on Kosovo, the Donbass, and other topics.

6. Demilitarization “guarantees”: Strict limits would be placed on the size and composition of Ukraine’s military and placement of foreign forces and weapons on its territory. More Lucy lies.

7. Denazification “guarantees”: Parties and movements with specified “extremist” ideologies would be legally banned. More Lucy lies. Elections would be held in rump Ukraine. All sides would pretend the resulting regime is democratic, legitimate, and “moderate.” Banderist neo-Nazi groups, formally illegal, would retain their guns and wield a permanent veto over any Kiev regime.

8. Kiev would commit to protections for the Russian language and Russian culture, the canonical Orthodox Church, etc. More Lucy lies.

9. The West would promise a phased lifting of sanctions and the return of frozen/confiscated Russian assets. “You can trust me this time, Charlie Brown!” Consider how long it took Russia to be removed from 1974 Jackson-Vanik sanctions only to then be immediately slapped with new Magnitsky Act sanctions.

The bottom line is that Moscow would pretend to have substantially if not entirely achieved its SMO goals, giving up its immediate military lead in exchange for false promises: déjà vu all over again. Pretenses aside, it would accept a “quarter of a loaf” truce that preserves NATO to fight another day and sustains an anti-Russia Ukrainian rump state as a de facto NATO platform, as opposed to a clear military victory – which at the very least would have to include annexation of Odessa and Kharkov, and probably Kiev, plus either liquidation of the Ukrainian state entirely or, at worst, creation of a minimal rump Ukraine that’s effectively a Russian satellite and a member of the Union State with Russia and Belarus.

Russian President Vladimir Putin says he hasn’t spoken to US President-elect Donald Trump in over four years but is ready to meet with the incoming US leader “if he wants it.”

Read more: https://t.co/M1XtNOT6Ku pic.twitter.com/ObjwAPv7df

— Sky News (@SkyNews) December 19, 2024

The latter outcome would shatter NATO and probably NATO’s concubine, the European Union. That’s precisely what the Washington Swamp can’t afford, Trump or no Trump. Thus, even if Trump were entirely sincere in promises to Moscow made on behalf of the United States (a very big “if” in my opinion), his ability to deliver on them would be at best highly questionable in light of an Executive Branch packed with neocons (what’s new?) and the implacable bipartisan hostility toward Russia in Congress. Then, even if, by some unbelievable miracle, Trump were able to ensure US and NATO performance on their commitments for the balance of his tenure, there would be no binding effect once he left office.

Granted, the above is just one possible scenario but one I submit is all too conceivable based on past performance of those concerned. If things go this way, not only does the GAE get a new lease on life and NATO live to fight another day, it would usher in heightened danger of war in the Middle East and the Western Pacific and, in due course, set the stage for renewed and possibly uncontrollable conflict in Europe in the not-too-distant future. Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov recently warned that his country needs to be ready to fight a war with NATO within the next decade, and he’s almost certainly right – especially if he and his boss allow that organization to slip out of its well-deserved fade into oblivion, almost ensuring that war will come a lot sooner than in ten years.

In laying out this possible near-term scenario, I would dearly love to be proven wrong by events. However, I have vanishingly small hope that the foregoing could resonate with any reader with agency on the American side. Perhaps chances are slightly better on the Russian side. As for the Ukrainians and the Europeans – what they think doesn’t matter to anyone, not even to themselves. 

Everybody’s favorite financial black hole in New York City – the MTA – is said to plan another fare hike just days before it institutes its congestion toll, according to a new report from the New York Post.

Spurring the hikes, the MTA approved a $1.27 billion order for 435 new subway cars, including 80 open-gangway models, and outlined plans to raise subway and bus fares to $3 per ride. Chairman Janno Lieber noted the fare increase, expected by late 2025, requires formal board approval next year.

Lieber said this week: “This is a good deal. We are way cheaper than other major world cities.” 

Well, there you have it…

But the Post writes that critics slammed the fare hikes and new $9 Manhattan congestion toll starting Jan. 5, pointing to high spending. The MTA’s plan includes 4% fare increases in 2025 and 2027, potentially raising fares to $3.14, with congestion tolls rising to $15 over time.

City Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli fired back: “Chicago Transit bought 400 cars for $632 million pre-pandemic.”

He added: “So given the MTA’s incompetence factor, multiplied by their waste, abuse and mismanagement, paying only double a few years later seems par for the course. Congestion pricing was supposed to solve all these capital shortfalls, but apparently now it won’t.”

City Council Member Robert Holden added: “The Miserable Transit Authority strikes again, raiding the pockets of hardworking New Yorkers with their congestion tax scam and endless fare and toll hikes.” 

He continued: “Instead of rooting out waste and abuse within their bloated system, they keep the grift alive at our expense. This is pathetic, unacceptable, and New Yorkers deserve better.”

Insiders doubt fare hikes and new tolls will affect upcoming elections for Gov. Hochul or others. Democratic strategist Jake Dilemani said commuters will feel the pinch, but political fallout is unlikely, according to the Post. 

The $1.27 billion plan includes 355 R211 subway cars and 80 open-gangway models debuting in 2027 to replace older trains on several lines. Some G-line riders will see open-gangway cars by early 2025.

MTA officials praised the R211 trains for reliability, wider doors, better signage, video cameras, and smoother service, calling it a key step in modernizing the subway.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump in 2016 went like every other presidential transition in modern history. The old administration had extended meetings with the new, and old agency heads and their staff trained the new ones. It was managed by Chris Christie and then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

It was funded by the General Services Administration and the incoming team received emergency drills, confidential documents, security briefings, and training sessions on emergency protocols. The FBI was brought on board to vet all new hires.

That’s because the incoming administration believed that the system worked. It had won and therefore would be in charge. That’s how it is supposed to work in the United States.

The idea of this process is to ensure continuity in government from one administration to the other.

In normal times, all of this would be a good idea. The Founders set up a structural system of government with minimal functions, stable law, checks and balances, and established elections for president every four years to ensure that the chief executive served with the people’s consent. Most functions of government were handled by the states, in any case.

There was never supposed to be a need for a fundamental regime change. We merely changed administrators and members of Congress. The rest was supposed to take care of itself, which is why it would seem to make sense that the old administration trains the new one, and a permanent staff of experts and civil service employees helps the new kids learn the ropes from those with experience.

And yet here we are. The Trump administration’s mandate from voters is not just for a change in personnel. The mandate is in fact for fundamental regime change within the framework of democracy. The administrative state, which is nowhere found in the Constitution, has over time developed far more power than elected leaders.

That absolutely must change, as voters made clear in November 2024. It was yet another case, just like in 2016, of the candidate winning whom nearly the whole of mainstream media believed would not win, and of the whole of what anyone would call the establishment disfavoring the result. The victory was so overwhelming as to amount to a primal scream against government as usual.

In this case, it makes no sense for the machinery that the incoming administration wants to overthrow to be in charge of the transition.

Remember that this is not Team Trump’s first rodeo. Last time, it went along with all the protocols, funding, systems, and sessions. The White House staff members went through day after day of lectures from government experts on how Washington works. They sat through intelligence briefings. They were schooled in protocols for the management of nuclear war, biological warfare, natural disasters, and pandemics.

They put up with all the PowerPoint presentations, exhortations, manuals, lists, and introductions to people who really run the government. They assumed that once the president was sworn in, he would in fact be the president and those whom he appointed would be in charge.

Almost immediately, however, it became clear that the permanent government was waging some kind of an information war against the elected one. The media worked closely with deeply embedded staff in intelligence and agencies to put out the word that Trump was illegitimately elected due to supposed Russian interference. This began immediately with a bang and put those in the new administration in a tight spot, forever defending themselves against absurd charges that they all knew to be untrue.

When that finally ended, new forms of trolling began, each more severe than the last. The Trump administration always had a loose hold on power due to all of this, but it was finally and fatally upended with the onset of respiratory pandemic. The proposed solution to this, according to all the experts deeply embedded in government, was to wreck the whole of the Trump economy while waiting for a shot to inoculate the public.

Along with that came record unemployment, new permissions and mandates for mail-in ballots, school and business closures, and wild uses of power that the new Trump administration never authorized. The bureaucracies were ruling the country on their own and following the edicts of interests and powers behind the World Health Organization (WHO). Most of the Trump administration’s last year in office was spent trying to claw back power from the WHO.

Finally, in July of 2020, the Trump administration announced that it was pulling itself out of the WHO completely. But that made no difference at all. YouTube had already announced in April that it would delete any content that contradicted the WHO, and it continued to enforce that policy for years. So far as I know, it still does.

After leaving office in January 2021, the Trump team went to work trying to figure out what the heck had happened in the first term to cause everything to go so wrong, or, more specifically, what enabled the administration’s authority to be so thoroughly subverted from within.

It concluded that the real problem began with the transition itself. That was when the permanent bureaucracy first asserted its power over the incoming administration. That’s when the deep state got its hooks in.

This time, the team has a very different plan. It is being managed by trusted members of Trump’s inner circle. They have not allowed the General Services Administration to manage any aspect of the transition. They have done this by refusing to accept any money from any government source. Instead, the transition has been entirely privately funded, with methods deployed to make sure that the funding sources are not tainted by deep state contacts. The explicit purpose has been to avoid subversion.

It’s been the same with FBI vetting. The incoming Trump administration simply does not trust the process and for good reason. It was the FBI that had spied on the campaign and even raided Trump’s own home. Furthermore, it worked with other agencies to deploy myriad forms of lawfare for years.

This transition is without precedent. The permanent staff of government itself only became the U.S. norm starting in 1883, and it has grown every decade since. At some point in the past, the elected leaders became more like decorations than real rulers of government. The Trump administration cannot achieve its objectives with this status quo.

This is the reason for this very different transition. It is a good sign and symbol of what might be coming. We might in fact experience a much-needed change of regime in Washington through exactly the system and process that the Founding Fathers set up. The second term of Trump seems determined to avoid repeating the obvious errors of the last time around.

*  *  *

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

They don’t call it the swamp for nothing…

Now a study recently published in Earth and Space Science confirms that about “three dozen” luxury high rise buildings in South Florida are “sinking”, according to a new report from Fox News.

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Miami, Florida Atlantic University, University of Houston, University of Hanover, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, and Caltech.

It found that 35 luxury condos and hotels in Florida’s Sunny Isles Beach, Surfside, Miami Beach, and Bal Harbour have experienced subsidence in recent years.

The study analyzed Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data and found affected high-rises sank 2-8 centimeters from 2016 to 2023. The University of Miami noted such settlement is common during and after construction. Most impacted buildings were constructed after 2014.

“We found that subsidence in most high-rises slows down over time, but in some cases, it continues at a steady rate. This suggests that subsidence could persist for an extended period,” the study says. 

The Fox News report says that study authors attributed the sinking to sand grains settling more densely in limestone layers, possibly influenced by construction vibrations, groundwater flow, tidal movements, or stormwater injection.

“The discovery of the extent of subsidence hotspots along the South Florida coastline was unexpected. The study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring and a deeper understanding of the long-term implications for these structures,” one study author commented.

Authored by Bronson Winslow via American Greatness,

President Joe Biden oversaw the most anti-Second Amendment administration in the history of the United States – effectively creating a police state that left every American open to prosecution. But when his son Hunter Biden ran into legal trouble and was convicted of three firearm felonies, Biden seemingly forgot about his own beliefs and granted clemency for all of Hunter’s crimes spanning the last ten years. To make matters worse, Biden continually assured the American people that he would not intervene.

Now, millions of gun owners remain in legal jeopardy under Biden’s policies, while Hunter walks free with his criminal record wiped clean. This blatant double standard is a slap in the face to the American people and a betrayal of whatever trust they may have still had in his leadership.

Unsurprisingly, Biden attempted to rationalize his decision by pointing fingers at the prosecution, saying it was “unfair and selective.” Regardless of his reasons, every American now facing legal prosecution due to unconstitutional firearm policies deserves the same treatment as Hunter.

Biden’s willingness to lie to the American people about his intentions highlights the ever-hypocritical left but also begs the question: If Biden is so eager to break his promises, why not break away from his leftist handlers and help American gun owners?

After all, Biden did not focus heavily on gun control as a U.S. senator and only became a radical gun-grabber after running for president in 2020. Biden’s only course of action is to apply a blanket pardon to all gun owners who have suffered under his administration’s abuse of power.

A History of Anti-Second Amendment Policies

The Biden-Harris administration has pursued the most aggressively anti-Second Amendment agenda in U.S. history. While they stopped short of outright gun confiscation, it wasn’t for lack of trying.

Biden’s weaponization of federal agencies, particularly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), led to a series of sweeping regulatory actions that turned millions of lawful gun owners into felons overnight.

Biden also advanced and implemented numerous policies that violated the Second Amendment by restricting every American’s right to bear arms. His administration sought “assault weapon” bans, red flag laws, magazine capacity limits, and universal background checks—all while limiting the places where law-abiding citizens may exercise their unlimited right to carry firearms.

These measures have not only undermined the Second Amendment but also emboldened federal agencies to act with impunity. In March, the consequences of this overreach turned deadly when Brian Malinowski was fatally shot during a botched ATF raid.

The ATF justified the raid by accusing Malinowski of illegally selling firearms at gun shows—a claim rooted in a controversial 2023 rule approved by the agency without congressional oversight. This rule redefined what qualifies as a “gun dealer,” allowing the ATF to target law-abiding citizens under a broader, unchecked mandate.

Malinowski, who was never proven guilty of the alleged crimes, was denied his day in court and lost his life over accusations far less severe than those against Hunter Biden.

Last-Minute Redemption

Biden will never outlive the detrimental policies his administration has implemented and will always be remembered as a hypocrite for pardoning his own son, but he could salvage some of his reputation if he applied his reasoning to all gun owners in America.

A blanket pardon for law-abiding gun owners—those now labeled as felons under ATF’s arbitrary and unconstitutional mandates—would be a step toward restoring trust and fairness.

If Biden is willing to protect his son, he should have no qualms about protecting ordinary Americans from his own unjust laws and regulations.

By breaking from the radical left’s playbook, Biden has an opportunity to show that clemency applies to all—not just to his family. The millions of gun owners affected by these policies deserve more than an apology.

They deserve action.

Authored by Ryan Silverstein via RealClearPolitics,

In November, President Trump and Republicans won a broad mandate to govern. Consequently, Democrats are now seeking refuge in traditions and institutions they once sought to destroy – the Senate filibuster and courts of law. President Trump and Republicans should seize this opportunity to use Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution to protect these institutions for generations to come.

Article 5 provides a two-step process for amending our Constitution. First, an amendment must be proposed. Under Article 5, there are two ways for proposing an amendment to the Constitution: (1) an amendment passes by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, or (2) two-thirds of state legislatures call for a constitutional convention and two-thirds of the delegates support an amendment. Once an amendment is proposed, three-fourths of states must ratify it for it to become law. Since there are fifty states, that means to change our constitution, 38 states must ratify an amendment.

In the 2024 election, President Trump carried 31 states. Moreover, Republicans control the state legislatures in 26 states, including some states Trump lost, like New Hampshire. Moreover, they flipped one chamber of state legislatures in Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They also made inroads in deep blue states like Maine and ended the Democratic supermajority in Vermont. From the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ballot, the country shifted right. President-elect Trump and Republicans should seize this opportunity to push for constitutional amendments that protect key norms and institutions from future attacks.

First, Republicans should support an amendment constitutionalizing the Senate filibuster for all legislation, excluding spending bills from the House. The filibuster – a Senate procedural mechanism that requires 60 votes for legislation to be passed – plays a key role in requiring bipartisan cooperation in the Senate. It has been used by both parties to prevent radical legislation from becoming law.

While Democrats recently found support for the filibuster, there is a movement on the left calling to abolish it. For example, in 2022, Democrats tried to kill the filibuster. This effort only failed because independent Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema voted against the filibuster-killing plan. In August, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed a desire to change the filibuster again so Democrats could have an easier time passing legislation. Democrats clearly only value the filibuster when they’re in the minority – but have no issue destroying it when they control the Senate. Adding the filibuster to the Constitution would preserve bipartisan cooperation and debate in the Senate, ensuring it remains the “greatest deliberative body in the world.”

Second, Republicans should back an amendment that sets the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices. Currently, the Constitution does not set the size of the Supreme Court. Democrats have spent years undermining the Court’s integrity to justify expanding it. Other Democrats like President Joe Biden claim the historically low public approval of the Supreme Court shows there is a need to reform our highest court. Yet, the Supreme Court still has higher approval ratings than Congress and President Biden. Moreover, the Supreme Court still has higher public confidence than Congress or the presidency.

The court’s size has not been changed since 1869 when Congress set the size at nine. The court’s size remaining at nine has played a key part in allowing the court to maintain the public’s support and its independence. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to expand the court in 1937, he failed because the public viewed his attempt at expanding the Court as an attack on a sacrosanct institution. There is a long institutional and democratic tradition of nine justices, which has allowed our highest court to remain isolated from the political fray. Alexander Hamilton famously defended an independent judiciary insulated from politics in Federalist Paper No. 78, where he argued liberty would be extinguished if the judicial power were co-opted by the executive or legislative branches. Hamilton’s fear may become reality as Democrats may push for more justices when they retain power – especially if President Trump gets to appoint more justices.

Adding more seats would destroy the public’s trust in any decision rendered by changing the public’s perception of justices to politicians in robes instead of neutral arbiters of law. Enshrining the number of Supreme Court justices in the Constitution would preserve the high court’s independence from political pressures and ensure the public’s trust in our independent judiciary isn’t destroyed.

President Trump and Republicans should utilize their momentum and get Congress to propose an amendment or pressure state legislatures to call a convention of states. Doing so will preserve core American institutions for years to come.

Ryan Silverstein is a J.D. candidate at Villanova University and a fellow with Villanova’s McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy. His work has previously appeared in the New York Daily News, Post & Courier, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Nuclear adoption continues accelerating, and now Virginia sure thinks it has found the way to “clean energy, billions in investment, and a solution to surging power demand”. The state is going to host the world’s first fusion power plant, according to the Virginia Mercury.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin said this week: “Commonwealth Fusion Systems plans on building the world’s first grid scale commercial fusion power plant in the world, full stop, and it’s going to be right here in the commonwealth of Virginia.”

Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), founded in 2018 in Cambridge, Mass., plans to build a fusion power plant in Chesterfield County’s James River Industrial Park. The facility, set to produce 400 megawatts of electricity to power 150,000 homes, could be operational by the early 2030s.

Fusion power, replicating the sun’s energy production, offers a cleaner alternative to traditional fission. The 25-acre project highlights Virginia’s role in advancing energy solutions amid surging demand from energy-intensive data centers supporting big tech.

A JLARC report projects Virginia’s data center energy demand could triple to 30,000 megawatts by 2040 if infrastructure supports it. To meet rising needs, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power are exploring modular nuclear reactors, wind, solar, and natural gas, the Virginia Mercury reported.

Fusion power offers a clean alternative, avoiding emissions tied to climate change. It combines hydrogen isotopes under extreme heat and pressure, using magnets to generate electricity via steam turbines, with helium as the only byproduct.

Dominion Energy Virginia President Edward H. Baine said: “Our customers’ growing needs for reliable, carbon-free power benefits from as diverse a menu of power generation options as possible, and in that spirit, we are delighted to assist CFS in their efforts.” 

The report says that CFS chose Chesterfield after a global search and will lease the site from Dominion Energy. Virginia secured the project with $2 million in state and county funding, a tax exemption for equipment, and federal DOE support. Gov. Youngkin estimates it will bring “billions” in development and “hundreds” of jobs.

CFS is building its SPARC demo plant in Massachusetts to pave the way for ARC technology in Chesterfield. Unlike laser-based fusion by California’s Lawrence Livermore Lab, CFS uses a tokamak, a donut-shaped device, to confine and fuse molecules.

Alex Creely, CFS director of tokamak operations, concluded: “One of the big advantages of fusion is that it doesn’t produce any long lived waste material, and there’s no risk of some kind of meltdown even. It’s a very safe energy source — something that you can live right next to and feel very comfortable with.”

Recall earlier this week we wrote that nuclear startup Oklo joined the long list of names signing deals with data centers for power heading into the next decade. 

Authored by former lead Senate investigator Paul D. Thacker via The Disinformation Chronicle,

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released their final report earlier this month, concluding that the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Tony Fauci funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where a lab accident likely started the initial outbreak.

Multiple U.S. agencies aided by virologist sought to cover-up this evidence, the Select Subcommittee charged, and several people broke the law by misleading congressional staff including Peter Daszak of EcoHealth, who funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab; NIH employee David Morens who served as Tony Fauci’s advisor; and former New York Governor Cuomo who lied about nursing home fatalities in his state.

The Select Subcommittee’s report will likely serve as roadmap for incoming Trump officials seeking to clean up federal research. However, Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen sought to invert the report’s findings, posting a series of false allegations about the report’s conclusions on Bluesky a social media app popular with Democrats fleeing X. Andersen was previously caught misleading Congress by myself and Ryan Grim at The Intercept, and his latest actions pile on the evidence that the Scripps scientist cannot tell the truth and lacks even a mob lawyer’s fleeting interest in candor.

Follow the Documents

Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, emerged as a controversial researcher early in the pandemic, and has been one of the most outspoken cheerleaders for the theory that pandemic started with a natural spillover from an animal to humans outside of a lab. But emails released a year after the pandemic’s beginning showed that Andersen initially thought the virus had been genetically engineered. However, after a phone call with Fauci and another major virology funder, Jeremy Farrar, then with the Wellcome Trust, Andersen reversed course.

Along with other virologists funded by Fauci and Farrar, Andersen then published a March 2020 Nature Medicine paper called “Proximal Origins” which concluded a Wuhan lab accident was not “plausible.” The Nature Medicine paper thus diverted any blame from Fauci for possibly starting the pandemic, as he was funding that same lab in Wuhan. Emails later showed that Fauci and Farrar helped guide the Nature Medicine piece to publication, a fact which Andersen continues to deny.

Emails and other private messages released in the summer of 2023 by Congress also indicated that Andersen’s co-authors on the Nature Medicine paper may have put politics before science.

“[G]iven the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content with ascribing it to [a] natural process,” Andersen’s colleague, Dr. Andrew Rambaut, wrote to a group of virologists over Slack in February 2020.

“Yup, I totally agree that that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstances,” Andersen replied.

Andersen did not return a request to explain his false statements, nor provide an explanation for who paid his lawyer when he appeared before the Committee.

Follow My Lies on BlueSky

Continuing his political campaign to deny a possible lab accident, Andersen posted excerpts of the House final report on Bluesky. In particular, Andersen posted a screenshot of a memo found on page 20 of the Select Subcommittee report. “This memo proves that Dr. Fauci can’t possibly have orchestrated a cover-up,” Andersen wrote. Andersen then repeated the dishonest claim that the memo is proof that Fauci had no involvement in directing the Nature Medicine paper, despite emails to the contrary.

In a later Bluesky post, Andersen charges that these emails are “a conspiracy theory, to be clear.” But Andersen’s Bluesky posts omit one small detail about this memo found on page 20—the report’s next page, page 21.

On the following page of the report, investigators note that Andersen testified that Fauci had suggested that he write a peer-reviewed paper (this is the Nature Medicine, Proximal Origins paper) on the possibility of a lab accident at Wuhan. Page 21 also reveals that Andersen emailed to Nature that Fauci and others “prompted” the paper:

When Dr. Andersen presented a draft of Proximal Origin to Nature, he stated it was “prompted” by Dr. Fauci and later stated the goal of Proximal Origin was to “disprove the lab leak theory.”

Here’s the report’s page 21 that Andersen failed to post on Bluesky.

And here’s the email Andersen wrote to Nature Medicine, where he explained that the Nature Medicine Proximal Origins paper was “prompted by Jeremy Farrar, Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins.”

To be clear, nothing is stopping Andersen from lying to his followers on Bluesky. He can continue posting truncated portions of the report to falsely assert Fauci had no involvement in his Nature Medicine paper. Lying liars lie.

But Andersen also got caught lying to Congress, and that’s where he can run into legal peril. Unlike lying on Bluesky, lying liars can be prosecuted when they lie to Congress.

Will DOJ Prosecute Lying Liars?

To mediate the Select Subcommittee’s demand for answers and to protect him during a deposition and public hearing, Andersen hired criminal defense lawyer, John P. Rowley, a former federal prosecutor who defended Trump before the Department of Justice.

In testimony Andersen submitted for a July 2023 House hearing, he sought to dismiss the emails showing that NIH officials Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins helped to orchestrate his Nature Medicine Proximal Origins paper.

But after Nature Medicine accepted the paper in March 2020, Andersen sent Fauci and Collins the paper’s draft and a draft of the press release. Andersen then thanked them for “advice and leadership” on the matter. “Please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions, or questions about the paper or the press release,” Andersen wrote the two NIH officials who funded his research.

“Nice job on the paper,” Fauci replied.

But in his July 2023 testimony, Andersen alleged that Fauci had not provided “advice and leadership” on the paper. Instead, Andersend proclaimed some monumental difference between asking someone to comment or offer suggestions about a paper instead of on a paper.

“Note, that I say ‘about the paper’, not e.g., ‘on the paper,’” Andersen testified.

Andersen sought to clarify later in his testimony, “Sending a copy of a paper that has been accepted and is in ‘proof’ (i.e., at a stage where only changes directly requested by the journal can be introduced) is simply a professional courtesy.”

Emails impeach this portion of Andersen’s testimony, as Fauci was provided multiple drafts of the paper. A month before Andersen emailed Fauci and Collins the “proof” of the paper in March 2020, Jeremy Farrar forwarded Fauci a “rough first draft” from Andersen’s co-author Edward “Eddie” Holmes.

“Please treat in confidence—a very rough first draft from Eddie and team—they will send on the edited, cleaner version later,” Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins. The following day, Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins, “Tony and Francis, The revised draft from Eddie, copied here.”

Much of the structure and footnotes are the same of this “rough first draft” and some phrases appear verbatim in the article Nature Medicine later published. Here are a few passages for comparison.

If this is not enough, one more bit to chew on. Andersen stated in his July 2023 testimony that Fauci had received the final “proof” of the article as “simply a professional courtesy.” But we know this is not true. Some months after Andersen’s congressional testimony Fauci testified that he had been sent multiple drafts.

Here’s Fauci discussing Andersen’s Nature Medicine paper starting on day 2, page 71 of his sworn deposition:

Q As the minority said, we’ve talked to all the U.S.-based authors or those who are acknowledged on that paper, so I won’t go through all of the science in it, except for I want — you were sent drafts periodically?

A Right.

Q A couple. I think it was less than 10, more than 5, drafts —

A Right.

Fauci’s January 2024 deposition impeaches Andersen’s July 2023 statement before Congress.

But it doesn’t end there. After Andersen was caught lying in his July 2023 congressional testimony, The Intercept published an expose a few days after, noting Andersen had also lied to Congress about his NIH funding from Fauci.

During the 2023 hearing, The Intercept discovered, Andersen sought to distract Members of Congress about a serious conflict of interest. While writing the Nature Medicine paper, whose conclusions diverted any blame from Fauci for funding research in the Wuhan lab, Andersen was awaiting Fauci’s approval for a major grant.

Here’s The Intercept:

Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research, who testified at the hearing along with Bob Garry of Tulane University, preempted the charge in his opening statement, telling the committee he had no live fundraising requests before Fauci’s agency at the time of the call. “There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origins of the pandemic. We applied for this grant in June 2019, and it was scored and reviewed by independent experts in November 2019,” Andersen testified. “Based on the actual timeline of this grant, it is not possible that the merit-based federal grant awarding process was influenced by a call in February, 2020.”

But Andersen’s testimony was false, The Intercept reported. While Andersen’s grant had been reviewed, it was still waiting for Fauci’s final approval and signature.

The grant wasn’t finalized until May 21, 2020. In other words, it was on Fauci’s desk at the time of the conference call. Andersen’s lab announced the funding in a press release in August 2020, nine months after he claimed it was already finalized. The press release describes it as a “new $8.9 million grant.”

In case you’re still not certain if Andersen is a liar, The Intercept posted a screenshot of Andersen’s grant, showing that Fauci had given final approval on May 21, 2020.

Congress is far from finished with addressing all the problems that happened during the pandemic. Just last week, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs (HSGAC) sent letters to a dozen federal agencies, demanding they preserve documents pertaining to Covid’s origins.

More to come…

Subscribe to The Disinformation Chronicle here…