freedom-report2

Why Red State Gold Group Was Named the #1 Rated Gold Company by Freedom Report

Wed, 09 Apr 2025 21:12:28 GMT

Why Red State Gold Group Was Named the #1 Rated Gold Company by Freedom Report

In today’s turbulent economic climate, Americans are turning to gold not just as an investment—but as a form of protection. With inflation rising, global instability increasing, and confidence in the dollar eroding, the need for a trustworthy, principled gold company has never been greater.

That’s why Freedom Report —a respected voice in financial independence and economic preparedness—has officially ranked Red State Gold Group as the #1 Gold Company in America .

Here’s why Red State stands above the rest:

US Integrity, Transparency, Veteran Expertise

At Red State Gold Group, these aren’t buzzwords—they’re guiding principles.

Founded by veterans, Red State is proud to be American-owned, American-operated , and built on the values that matter most: duty, service, and honor . Every client is treated with the same care, precision, and respect that our founders practiced while serving our country.

In a market filled with flashy sales tactics and hidden fees, Red State has emerged as a trusted leader by doing the exact opposite— providing full transparency, ethical guidance, and top-tier service without the fluff.

A Mission of Service—Not Sales

Red State’s mission is simple and bold:

“To lead the precious metals-backed IRA space with unmatched service and integrity.”

While other firms prioritize profits, Red State prioritizes people. The company is known for offering lower transaction costs than most competitors, all backed by a steadfast price match guarantee —because protecting your wealth shouldn’t come at a premium.

Regulatory Excellence & Ethical Standards

Operating under the highest standards of regulatory compliance , Red State holds itself to a level of accountability that most in the industry can’t match. Every recommendation is rooted in both market expertise and ethical responsibility —ensuring your financial future is protected by people you can trust.

From their no-pressure advisors to their fully U.S.-based support team , every part of the Red State experience reflects one thing: respect for the individual investor .

Why Freedom Report Chose Red State Gold Group
Freedom Report reviewed dozens of gold companies across America, evaluating them on:
Customer satisfaction & reviews
Pricing transparency
Regulatory compliance
Product selection & IRA expertise
Ethical standards and trustworthiness

Red State Gold Group earned top marks in every category.

Thousands of Americans have already trusted Red State to help them move their retirement into precious metals-backed IRAs —protecting their savings from inflation, recession, and currency collapse.

Your Financial Freedom Starts Here

When you choose Red State, you’re not just buying gold—you’re joining a movement of patriots protecting their wealth with integrity . You’re gaining access to elite-level insight, unmatched service, and the peace of mind that your future is in good hands.

Whether you’re rolling over an IRA, looking to diversify your portfolio, or just want honest answers in a confusing market— Red State Gold Group delivers .

Robert Kiyosaki Predicts Silver Will Outperform Bitcoin in the Coming Months: A New Approach to Building Wealth

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 08:26:41 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

Robert Kiyosaki, the world-renowned author of Rich Dad Poor Dad , continues to spark conversation with his bold financial predictions. Known for his outspoken critiques of traditional financial systems, Kiyosaki is once again calling for a shift in how people approach their wealth. This time, his focus is on precious metals and cryptocurrency as alternatives to government-issued fiat currencies, which he deems as “fake money.”

Kiyosaki's stance on fiat currency has been consistent for years. He argues that traditional savings accounts and cash holdings are losing value over time due to inflation, often leading to financial stagnation for those who don't make changes to their investment strategies. This message of financial independence through real assets, including gold, silver, and Bitcoin, has become a recurring theme in his commentary.

A Call to Action: Move Beyond Fiat Currency

On March 28, Kiyosaki reiterated his warning on social media, encouraging his followers to stop saving in fiat currency. “For many, many years I have been recommending people not save ‘fake money’ a.k.a. FIAT government money,” Kiyosaki wrote. He stressed the importance of investing in assets that can preserve and even increase in value over time, pointing out the historical resilience of gold and silver, and more recently, Bitcoin.

Kiyosaki’s outlook on fiat currency is rooted in his belief that government-issued money is inherently flawed. Due to central banks’ constant printing of money, inflation continues to reduce the value of the dollar, eroding people’s savings in the process. By recommending alternatives like gold, silver, and Bitcoin, Kiyosaki encourages individuals to protect their wealth against the destructive forces of inflation and government overreach.

Silver Takes the Spotlight

While Kiyosaki has been a long-time advocate for both gold and Bitcoin, his latest remarks are generating attention due to his surprising endorsement of silver. Historically, silver has been overshadowed by gold as the go-to precious metal for wealth preservation. However, Kiyosaki is now predicting that silver will outperform both Bitcoin and gold over the next few months, making it the most promising investment in the short term.

“Silver for the next two months is the best of the three: gold, silver, and Bitcoin,” Kiyosaki stated confidently. With silver currently priced around $35 per ounce, he believes it has significant upside potential. He went on to predict that silver could double in value to $70 per ounce within this year and could even reach $200 in the next one or two years.

Why silver, and why now?

Kiyosaki’s positive outlook on silver is based on a few key factors. First, he believes that silver is currently undervalued relative to its potential. The metal has a variety of industrial uses—such as in electronics, solar panels, and medical devices—creating a constant demand for it. Additionally, silver tends to act as a hedge against inflation, much like gold, but with more volatility and potentially higher rewards in a shorter time frame.

One of the reasons Kiyosaki advocates for silver over gold and Bitcoin is its accessibility. Unlike gold, which has a high price point that may make it less accessible for smaller investors, silver is relatively affordable and can be easily purchased in coin or bar form. Kiyosaki emphasizes that almost anyone can start building wealth with physical silver, regardless of their income level.

“The best news is, almost everyone in the world can afford at least one silver coin today… but not tomorrow,” he cautioned. This sentiment reflects his belief that the window of opportunity to invest in silver at a relatively low price is closing quickly, making now the perfect time to act.

Bitcoin: Still a Key Part of the Strategy

While Kiyosaki’s current enthusiasm for silver is apparent, he remains a strong supporter of Bitcoin. He has long described Bitcoin as “the people’s money” and has consistently championed its role in protecting individuals from the risks of fiat currency. In fact, Kiyosaki has previously referred to Bitcoin as “insurance against a dying dollar” and made bold predictions about its future potential, including a price target of $1 million per coin.

Despite the volatility and regulatory challenges Bitcoin faces, Kiyosaki believes it is an essential part of any diversified portfolio. He sees Bitcoin as a long-term investment, with the potential to become a dominant global currency as trust in government-backed fiat currencies continues to diminish. For Kiyosaki, Bitcoin represents financial freedom and protection from the shortcomings of the traditional banking system.

However, unlike Bitcoin, which may be less accessible for individuals who are just beginning to invest, silver offers a more approachable entry point for the everyday person looking to secure their financial future.

A Historical Comparison: Silver vs. Bitcoin vs. Gold

Looking at recent price movements, silver has outperformed both Bitcoin and gold in terms of annual percentage growth. Over the past year, silver has surged by 37.21%, making it the best performer of the three. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has risen by 20.4%, and gold has increased by 36.64%.

While Bitcoin continues to attract attention for its meteoric rise in value, it remains a volatile asset with unpredictable price swings. In contrast, silver and gold are often seen as safer bets during times of economic uncertainty. Silver’s performance in the past year has certainly caught Kiyosaki’s attention, leading him to believe that it holds the most potential for growth in the near future.

As of now, Bitcoin is trading at approximately $85,136 per coin, silver is priced at $34.42 per ounce, and gold stands at $3,074.75 per ounce. The stark difference in price points further supports Kiyosaki’s argument that silver is more accessible for average investors looking to build wealth in the short term.

Kiyosaki’s Ultimate Financial Advice: Protect Your Wealth with Real Assets

At the heart of Kiyosaki’s message is a desire to help people avoid the pitfalls of traditional financial planning. His overarching goal is to help individuals protect and grow their wealth, particularly as the world faces economic uncertainty and inflationary pressures. For Kiyosaki, the solution lies in shifting away from fiat currency and embracing real assets like gold, silver, and Bitcoin.

“I want you to grow richer… not poorer,” Kiyosaki insists. His message is clear: diversify your wealth, secure your financial future, and safeguard yourself against the unpredictable forces of inflation, government debt, and central bank policies.

In a world where many are still relying on traditional savings accounts and government-issued currency, Kiyosaki’s words serve as a reminder that taking control of one’s financial future requires thoughtful action and a shift in mindset. Whether you decide to invest in silver, Bitcoin, or gold, Kiyosaki’s advice is aimed at encouraging individuals to move beyond outdated financial strategies and begin building wealth through assets that stand the test of time.

As Kiyosaki continues to sound the alarm on the risks of fiat currency, his latest endorsement of silver underscores the importance of being proactive and taking steps to protect wealth before the opportunity slips away. With silver, gold, and Bitcoin all offering potential in different ways, now may be the perfect time to reassess your financial strategy and consider diversifying your portfolio with real, tangible assets.

US Stock Market Dips Days Before Trump's New Tariffs Take Effect

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 07:34:01 GMT

US Stock Market Dips Days Before Trump's New Tariffs Take Effect

In a turbulent turn of events, US stock markets have once again fallen, with investors bracing for President Donald Trump's imminent announcement of a sweeping new slate of import taxes. Set to be unveiled this Wednesday, Trump has dubbed this new round of tariffs “America's Liberation Day,” signaling a fresh chapter in the nation's trade policy that could have far-reaching consequences for both the US and global economies.

This latest market dip follows growing anxiety among investors as they anticipate the impact of these new tariffs, not just on the US economy, but also on the global trade landscape. The timing of the announcement has only compounded investor uncertainty, as it comes just days before the new taxes are expected to take effect.

Global Markets React to US Tariff Threats

The ripple effect of these tariff concerns has been felt far beyond US borders. In Asia, Japan's Nikkei index experienced a sharp decline, dropping by more than 4% as traders reacted to the looming uncertainty of the new tariffs. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the UK’s FTSE 100 closed almost 1% lower, reflecting the widespread anxiety surrounding the US’s aggressive trade policies. The news has cast a shadow over international markets, prompting fears of a global slowdown as countries adjust to the potential fallout.

Trump's Tariff Plan: A Broad-Sided Approach

President Trump’s statement earlier this week further fueled concerns when he suggested that the new tariffs would target all countries, not just those with the most significant trade imbalances with the US. This announcement stands in contrast to the administration's previous focus on specific nations like China, Mexico, and the European Union, which had been the primary targets of US trade actions. By expanding the scope of his tariff policies, Trump is sending a clear message that no country will be exempt from the economic pressures he plans to impose.

Such a sweeping strategy raises alarms among global trade partners, who are now preparing for potential disruptions to established trade relationships. With economies already reeling from the ongoing trade war between the US and China, the possibility of more countries being drawn into the fray has only added to the tension.

The UK Prepares for Impact

The UK, a key US trading partner, has already voiced concerns about the potential impact of these new tariffs. Downing Street has stated that it “expects” to be affected by the US’s new trade measures and is not ruling out the possibility of retaliatory tariffs. This adds another layer of complexity to the already fraught relationship between the US and the UK, which has been navigating the challenges of Brexit while managing its own economic recovery.

The prospect of retaliatory tariffs from the UK and other countries could escalate the situation further, leading to a global tit-for-tat that could harm trade flows, increase costs for consumers, and dampen global growth prospects.

A Continuation of Existing Tariff Measures

The new tariffs are expected to be added on top of several other duties that the US has already imposed on a variety of goods. These include significant tariffs on aluminium, steel, and vehicles, as well as increased levies on all goods imported from China. These existing measures have already disrupted global supply chains and hurt industries that rely on international trade.

For US manufacturers, the increased costs of raw materials like steel and aluminium have put pressure on their bottom lines, while industries like the automotive sector have faced higher costs for imported vehicles and parts. Likewise, businesses across the world that rely on Chinese imports have struggled with the higher costs resulting from US tariffs.

As these new tariffs are rolled out, it’s likely that the disruptions and costs will continue to mount, potentially pushing global economies further toward recession.

Dharshini David’s Analysis: What’s Next?

Despite the looming uncertainty, it’s still unclear exactly what President Trump’s tariff plan will entail and how it will affect global markets. Analysts like Dharshini David have pointed out that, given the twists and backtracking that have characterized Trump’s trade policies thus far, it’s difficult to predict what the final details of his plan will look like. In the past, the President has shifted course on trade agreements and tariff plans, often leaving both markets and foreign governments scrambling to keep up with changes in direction.

The lack of clarity has only added to the anxiety among investors and businesses alike, as they wonder how the President’s final decision will impact everything from global trade flows to stock market stability. This unpredictability is one of the key reasons why markets have reacted so negatively, with investors seeking safety amid the volatility.

Global Uncertainty and the Road Ahead

As the situation continues to unfold, it’s clear that both the US and global economies are facing a period of uncertainty. Trump’s planned tariffs are just the latest development in an ongoing saga of shifting trade policies that have left markets on edge. With global supply chains already stressed and key economies dealing with the fallout from previous rounds of tariffs, the announcement of new trade barriers could tip the scales toward a global economic slowdown.

In the coming days, all eyes will be on President Trump as he unveils the details of his tariff plan. Will it be a game-changer, or will it be another round of tariffs that disappoints traders and businesses? Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: the global economy and the stock markets are in for a bumpy ride in the months ahead. For now, investors will be watching closely, trying to gauge the full impact of the US’s latest tariff moves on the global economy and their portfolios.

As we wait for Wednesday’s announcement, the world’s financial markets remain on edge, poised for whatever Trump’s next move will bring. The only certainty at this point is the uncertainty itself.

China, Japan, and South Korea Set to Join Forces Against U.S. Tariffs, Chinese State Media Reports

mattjuangiraldo@gmail.com (Matt G) — Tue, 01 Apr 2025 07:18:49 GMT

Countries Unite to Combat the Trump Tariffs

In a significant move to strengthen their economic alliances, China, Japan, and South Korea have agreed to take a unified stance against the U.S. tariffs that have been a point of tension in recent years. The agreement comes after the three countries held their first economic dialogue in five years on Sunday, underscoring their commitment to enhancing regional trade cooperation as they prepare for the economic challenges posed by the United States under President Donald Trump’s administration.

The announcement, which was made through a post by a social media account linked to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV, highlights the shared concerns of these Asian economic giants regarding the tariffs imposed by the U.S. As the trade war between the U.S. and China continues to evolve, Japan and South Korea are looking to deepen their trade ties with China, particularly in the area of semiconductor raw materials.

According to the post, Japan and South Korea have expressed interest in importing essential semiconductor materials from China, while China is eager to expand its purchase of finished chip products from its neighbors. This reciprocal trade interest points to a mutual recognition of the importance of these high-tech industries, which have become a cornerstone of the global economy.

Strengthening Economic Ties and Regional Cooperation

One of the key points of the dialogue was the emphasis on strengthening supply chain cooperation between the three countries. The economic ministers of China, Japan, and South Korea agreed to pursue more in-depth discussions on export controls, signaling a collective effort to protect and expand their respective industries while mitigating the impact of external pressures, such as tariffs imposed by the U.S.

The three nations also committed to discussing the prospects of a free trade agreement between South Korea, Japan, and China—an initiative that could significantly enhance regional economic integration. The ministers expressed their determination to push for "comprehensive and high-level" talks aimed at bolstering trade within Asia and creating more robust trade frameworks that could have a far-reaching impact on global markets.

This decision to take joint action comes just days before President Trump is expected to announce new tariffs, a move he has referred to as "liberation day," which marks a further escalation in the ongoing trade dispute. As the U.S. continues to challenge its trade partners, Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo are determined to shield their economies from the potential fallout by forging stronger alliances among themselves.

Navigating Tensions and Past Disputes

While the economic dialogue was a step forward in terms of trade cooperation, it is important to note that these three nations have not always seen eye to eye on various political and historical issues. Long-standing territorial disputes between Japan and South Korea, as well as tensions related to Japan's handling of wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, have sometimes complicated diplomatic relations in the region.

Despite these challenges, the shared economic interests among China, Japan, and South Korea have propelled them toward finding common ground. In particular, their reliance on each other as major trading partners has created a strong incentive for cooperation, even as they face external pressures from the United States.

A New Era of Regional Cooperation

As China, Japan, and South Korea look toward the future, the decision to collaborate on economic matters comes at a crucial time. With global trade dynamics shifting and the U.S. implementing more tariffs, these nations are signaling a united front in defense of their economic interests. The outcome of this dialogue could not only reshape the regional trade landscape but also have significant implications for global trade policy.

As the three countries prepare for ongoing discussions, it will be interesting to see how their collective approach to trade and tariffs influences broader global economic trends. With China, Japan, and South Korea coming together to respond to U.S. trade policies, their joint efforts may serve as a model for other nations facing similar challenges in the complex world of international trade.

Nvidia’s stock can hit $190 as ‘generational opportunity’ unfolds, says BofA

Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:32:32 GMT

In a bullish forecast that has captured the attention of investors

In a bullish forecast that has captured the attention of investors, Bank of America (BofA) analysts have predicted that Nvidia’s stock could surge to $190, driven by what they describe as a “generational opportunity” in the semiconductor and artificial intelligence (AI) markets. This optimistic outlook highlights the growing importance of AI technologies and the pivotal role Nvidia plays in this evolving landscape.

A Leader in AI and GPU Technology

Nvidia has long been recognized as a leader in graphics processing units (GPUs), but its recent advancements in AI technology have catapulted the company into a new realm of significance. As businesses increasingly adopt AI-driven solutions, the demand for powerful computing resources has skyrocketed. Nvidia’s GPUs are integral to many AI applications, ranging from machine learning to data analysis, making the company a key player in this burgeoning field.

Bank of America’s analysts emphasize that the demand for AI capabilities is expected to escalate, positioning Nvidia favorably to capitalize on this trend. As organizations seek to leverage AI for competitive advantage, Nvidia’s products are likely to be at the forefront of these efforts, driving substantial revenue growth.

Strong Financial Performance

Nvidia’s recent financial performance has also bolstered confidence in its stock. The company has reported impressive earnings, surpassing analysts’ expectations and demonstrating robust revenue growth. A surge in data center sales, driven by the adoption of AI technologies, has been particularly noteworthy. This momentum, coupled with strong demand from gaming and professional visualization sectors, suggests that Nvidia’s growth trajectory is set to continue.

The anticipated growth in revenues is a significant factor behind Bank of America’s price target. Analysts believe that Nvidia’s ability to innovate and adapt to market demands will enhance its profitability, allowing it to achieve new highs in the stock market.

Market Dynamics and Competitive Landscape

Nvidia’s market position is bolstered by its competitive advantages, including its strong brand recognition, extensive research and development capabilities, and a loyal customer base. As competitors strive to catch up, Nvidia’s established presence in the AI and GPU markets gives it an edge. BofA analysts noted that the company’s leadership in this space allows it to dictate trends and maintain pricing power.

Additionally, the global shift toward digital transformation and automation further strengthens Nvidia’s position. As industries increasingly invest in technology to improve efficiency and productivity, the demand for Nvidia’s innovative solutions is expected to grow, reinforcing the company’s market dominance.

Investor Sentiment

The bullish sentiment surrounding Nvidia is palpable among investors. The stock has attracted significant attention from both institutional and retail investors, reflecting confidence in its future prospects. The combination of strong financial performance, favorable market dynamics, and the company’s pivotal role in the AI revolution has contributed to a positive outlook.

BofA’s $190 price target represents a substantial upside potential, signaling that the market has yet to fully appreciate Nvidia’s growth trajectory. Investors are increasingly recognizing the long-term potential of AI technologies, and Nvidia’s central role in this evolution positions it as a compelling investment opportunity.

Conclusion

As the landscape of technology continues to evolve, Nvidia stands at the forefront of the AI revolution, presenting what Bank of America describes as a “generational opportunity.” With a strong foundation in GPU technology, impressive financial performance, and a favorable market environment, the potential for Nvidia’s stock to reach $190 seems increasingly plausible.

For investors looking to capitalize on the growing demand for AI and advanced computing solutions, Nvidia represents a compelling option. As the company continues to innovate and expand its reach, its stock may well reflect the transformative potential of the technologies it provides. In an era where AI is becoming integral to various sectors, Nvidia’s position as a leader in this field bodes well for its future growth and stock performance.

Trump tariffs would hit these stock-market sectors the hardest

Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:28:46 GMT

Trump Tariffs Would Hit These Stock-Market Sectors the Hardest

As discussions around potential tariffs resurface under former President Donald Trump’s renewed economic agenda, investors are closely monitoring which sectors of the stock market might bear the brunt of these policies. Tariffs, which are taxes imposed on imported goods, can significantly alter market dynamics, impacting everything from supply chains to consumer prices. Here’s a closer look at the sectors likely to be hit the hardest by Trump's tariff proposals.

1. Manufacturing

The manufacturing sector stands to be significantly affected by increased tariffs, particularly those aimed at imports from countries like China. Many U.S. manufacturers rely on foreign components and raw materials, and higher tariffs can lead to increased production costs. Companies in industries such as automotive, machinery, and electronics could face squeezed margins as they grapple with rising costs of imported parts. This scenario may force manufacturers to either pass these costs onto consumers or absorb them, impacting their bottom lines.

2. Consumer Goods

Consumer goods companies could also feel the pinch from tariffs. With many everyday items—ranging from clothing to electronics—imported from overseas, tariffs would likely lead to higher prices for consumers. Retailers may struggle to maintain profit margins as they adjust to these increased costs. The sectors that could be most affected include apparel, footwear, and home goods, particularly those heavily reliant on imports from countries like China and Vietnam.

3. Technology

The technology sector could experience disruptions as well, especially companies that rely on a global supply chain. Many tech firms source components from various countries, and tariffs could lead to increased costs for everything from semiconductors to consumer electronics. High-profile companies in this space may face challenges in maintaining their competitive edge, particularly if they are unable to pass on costs to consumers. This could lead to reduced profitability and slower growth projections.

4. Construction and Real Estate

Tariffs on steel and aluminum imports could have significant implications for the construction and real estate sectors. Increased costs for building materials could slow down construction projects, leading to delays and potential increases in housing prices. As these costs rise, developers may be less inclined to initiate new projects, which could lead to a slowdown in the housing market. Additionally, consumers may face higher mortgage rates and affordability challenges, further complicating the landscape for real estate.

5. Agriculture

The agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs. While U.S. farmers may benefit from protections on certain domestic products, they could suffer if countries retaliate with their own tariffs on American agricultural exports. This could disrupt markets for crops such as soybeans, corn, and wheat, which rely heavily on exports. Any downturn in agricultural exports could lead to reduced income for farmers and a corresponding impact on rural economies.

6. Transportation and Logistics

Transportation and logistics companies could also face challenges as tariffs lead to increased costs and delays in the supply chain. Companies involved in shipping, freight, and logistics may struggle to adapt to changing tariffs on goods, potentially leading to higher shipping rates and slower delivery times. These companies might have to rethink their logistics strategies, which could affect their profitability and operational efficiency.

Conclusion

As former President Trump’s administration hints at a return to protectionist trade policies, the potential for tariffs to disrupt various sectors of the stock market remains a pressing concern for investors. While some sectors may find ways to adapt, others are likely to experience significant challenges that could impact stock performance and investor sentiment.

For investors, understanding which sectors are likely to be most affected by potential tariffs will be crucial in navigating the evolving economic landscape. Staying informed and strategically assessing the implications of trade policies will be key in making sound investment decisions in this uncertain environment.

SEC’s Grewal Moves to Wall Street After Turning Tough as Its Overseer

Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:23:27 GMT

The regulator’s former enforcement director becomes a partner at Milbank after three years pushing fines higher at the SEC

The Regulator’s Former Enforcement Director Becomes a Partner at Milbank After Three Years Pushing Fines Higher at the SEC

In a significant career transition, the former Enforcement Director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who played a pivotal role in ramping up financial penalties during their tenure, has joined the prestigious law firm Milbank as a partner. This move marks a notable shift from the public sector to private practice, highlighting the ongoing interplay between regulatory agencies and the legal field.

A Career at the SEC

During their three years at the SEC, the former enforcement director was instrumental in reshaping the agency's approach to financial misconduct. Under their leadership, the SEC adopted a more aggressive stance, pushing for higher fines and penalties against violators of securities laws. This change was partly driven by a commitment to deter wrongdoing and protect investors, but it also reflected an evolving regulatory landscape that increasingly prioritized accountability.

The director’s tenure saw the implementation of stricter enforcement policies, which led to significant financial penalties against major corporations and financial institutions. These actions were part of a broader effort to restore public trust in the financial system following a series of high-profile scandals and the lingering effects of the 2008 financial crisis.

Transition to Milbank

Joining Milbank as a partner, the former SEC enforcement chief brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the firm. Milbank, known for its robust corporate practice and strong reputation in financial law, stands to benefit from the director’s extensive knowledge of regulatory frameworks and enforcement strategies.

In their new role, the former director will likely focus on providing counsel to clients navigating the complex intersection of regulatory compliance and corporate governance. Their unique background positions them to offer invaluable insights into the regulatory environment, particularly for companies seeking to mitigate risk and avoid enforcement actions.

Implications for the Legal Landscape

The appointment raises important questions about the revolving door between government regulators and private law firms. Critics often argue that this phenomenon can lead to conflicts of interest and a lack of accountability in regulatory enforcement. However, supporters contend that such transitions can enhance the quality of legal representation by bringing insider knowledge of regulatory processes to private practice.

As the regulatory environment continues to evolve, having former high-ranking officials in law firms may provide companies with a strategic advantage. These individuals possess not only legal expertise but also an understanding of the enforcement priorities and practices of regulatory agencies, which can be critical in navigating investigations and compliance challenges.

Looking Ahead

As the former enforcement director begins this new chapter at Milbank, their transition symbolizes a broader trend within the legal and regulatory spheres. With increasing scrutiny on financial practices and heightened enforcement actions from the SEC, businesses are more than ever looking for legal counsel equipped to handle complex regulatory issues.

The former director’s move to Milbank underscores the dynamic relationship between regulation and the legal profession. As enforcement strategies continue to evolve, both regulators and legal practitioners will play crucial roles in shaping the future of financial compliance and corporate governance.

In conclusion, the departure of a key figure from the SEC to a major law firm not only marks a significant personal milestone but also highlights the ongoing challenges and complexities that lie ahead for companies operating in an increasingly regulated environment. As they embark on this new journey, the former enforcement director's impact on the legal landscape will be closely watched by both industry insiders and observers alike.

China’s Latest Round of Property Stimulus Fails to Inspire Markets

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:19:57 GMT

Markets largely shrugged off the new measures, which were milder than expected

China’s Latest Round of Property Stimulus Fails to Inspire Markets

In an effort to revive its struggling property sector, China recently unveiled a new round of stimulus measures aimed at bolstering market confidence and boosting home sales. However, the response from investors and market analysts has been tepid, raising concerns about the effectiveness of these initiatives.

The Context of the Stimulus

China's property market has been under immense pressure for several years, grappling with a combination of excessive debt, regulatory crackdowns, and declining buyer sentiment. With real estate accounting for a significant portion of the country’s GDP, the downturn has had widespread implications for economic growth. In response, the Chinese government has attempted various strategies, including easing borrowing restrictions for developers and providing incentives for homebuyers. The latest stimulus measures are a continuation of this trend, intended to stabilize prices and encourage purchasing activity.

Details of the New Measures

The recent stimulus package includes reductions in mortgage rates, further relaxations on purchasing restrictions in certain cities, and financial support for struggling developers. The government aims to increase liquidity in the market and encourage banks to lend more freely to both homebuyers and property developers. Officials are optimistic that these measures will help restore confidence among potential buyers and stimulate demand, particularly in tier-one cities where housing prices remain high.

Market Reaction: A Lackluster Response

Despite the government’s optimism, the market response has been lackluster. Following the announcement of the new measures, property stocks experienced only modest gains, and trading volumes remained subdued. Analysts noted that while the stimulus might provide a short-term boost, it is unlikely to lead to a sustainable recovery in the property market. Concerns persist about the underlying issues—such as high debt levels among developers and persistent buyer hesitation—compounding the challenges the market faces.

Investors are also wary of potential risks associated with the government’s interventions. The fear of repeating past mistakes, such as unsustainable borrowing practices that led to the current crisis, looms large. This caution has contributed to a lack of enthusiasm for the latest stimulus measures, as market participants remain unconvinced that they will address the root causes of the downturn.

Broader Economic Implications

The stagnation in the property market has broader implications for China’s economy. Real estate is a key driver of growth, impacting everything from construction to consumer spending. If the market fails to rebound, it could hinder the recovery of other sectors and dampen overall economic growth. This has prompted calls for a more comprehensive approach that not only focuses on short-term stimulus but also addresses the structural issues facing the property market.

Conclusion

China’s latest round of property stimulus has not inspired the markets as hoped, reflecting a cautious investor sentiment in the face of ongoing challenges. While the government’s efforts aim to stabilize the sector, significant obstacles remain that could impede a lasting recovery. As the situation evolves, stakeholders will be closely monitoring the effectiveness of these measures and the overall health of the property market, recognizing that a robust rebound may require deeper systemic changes beyond immediate financial incentives.

Dow books fresh record high as U.S. stocks extend weekly winning streak

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:15:48 GMT

All three major U.S. stock indexes closed higher Friday, each clinching a sixth straight week of gains.

All three major U.S. stock indexes finished higher on Friday, marking a significant milestone as each secured a sixth consecutive week of gains. This positive momentum reflects growing investor confidence and resilience in the face of ongoing economic challenges.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by 36.86 points, or 0.1%, closing at 43,275.91. This marked the Dow's 40th record close of 2024, highlighting the index's remarkable performance this year.

The S&P 500 also enjoyed a strong day, rising 23.20 points, or 0.4%, to end at 5,864.67. This represents the S&P's 47th all-time high, underscoring the index's robust trajectory and its ability to attract investment amid fluctuating market conditions.

Meanwhile, the Nasdaq Composite climbed 115.94 points, or 0.6%, wrapping up the day at 18,489.55. The technology-heavy index continues to show resilience, driven by strong performances in the tech sector, which remains a key driver of market growth.

Looking at the week as a whole, the Dow posted a gain of 1%, while the S&P 500 saw an increase of 0.9%. The Nasdaq advanced by 0.8%, contributing to a solid overall performance across the major indexes. Notably, both the Dow and the S&P 500 achieved their longest weekly winning streaks of 2024, signaling a sustained bullish sentiment among investors.

The consistent upward movement in these indexes reflects a combination of factors, including positive corporate earnings reports, a relatively stable economic outlook, and investor optimism regarding future growth. As we move forward, market participants will be keenly watching for any economic indicators or geopolitical developments that could impact this trend.

Overall, Friday’s gains reinforce the prevailing positive sentiment in the markets, setting the stage for continued growth as we head into the next week. Investors will be eager to see whether this momentum can be sustained in the face of potential challenges on the horizon.

Gold Price Forecast: Hits Record High of $2,721, Eyes on Higher Targets

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 23:12:33 GMT

Surging to $2,721, gold shows strong bullish momentum with key targets at $2,754 and $2,815, supported by a breakout from the bull flag pattern.

Gold prices continued to climb on Friday, hitting a new record high of $2,721. As of this writing, buyers remain dominant, with the precious metal trading close to its peak for the day. The bullish momentum observed today indicates an improvement compared to the previous three days, following the initial breakout from a bull flag trend continuation pattern. Notably, the trading range today is wider than that of the last three days. A strong close today, both daily and weekly, would position gold well for potential higher targets.

First Target: $2,724

The first target zone is set at $2,724, marking the initial target for a rising ABCD pattern, as illustrated in purple on the chart. This level is likely to encounter resistance, which could lead to a pullback. If this target is surpassed, the next level to watch is $2,754. Achieving this price would complete a 250% extended retracement of the bearish correction that began from the March 2022 peak. Additionally, keep an eye on the upper parallel channel rising trendline, as it may provide further insights as these price levels are approached.

Bull Flag Points to $2,815

A higher potential target of $2,815 is derived from the measuring objective of the bull flag. The breakout of the flag followed a successful test of support at the 20-Day moving average earlier in the session, serving as a launching point. There is also an earlier target slightly below this, at $2,797, which would complete a 200% retracement of the bearish correction that started from the 2011 peak of $1,921.

Key Support Level at $2,686

On the downside, a drop below today’s low of $2,692 would indicate short-term weakness and could lead to a more significant pullback. The breakout to new highs occurred above $2,686, making it a critical level to watch for support. If this decline happens before new highs are established, a deeper pullback seems likely, especially given that today marks only the first bullish follow-through day. The 20-Day moving average will be crucial; since reclaiming it on August 8, it has effectively served as a support area for the trend. If it fails to hold, that would be a warning sign for traders.

Shock Poll: Trump Is Close in New Mexico

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:59:07 GMT

KA Consulting’s outlier result suggests Trump is within striking distance in the Land of Enchantment.

It’s challenging to envision former President Donald Trump winning New Mexico, a state that has leaned Democratic in recent elections. However, a newly released poll from KA Consulting claims that the Republican ticket is only three percentage points behind Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. This unexpected finding has sparked interest and debate among political analysts and voters alike.

KA Consulting’s metrics suggest a much closer race than what is reflected by major polling firms, all of which report Harris leading comfortably in the Southwestern state. The KA Consulting poll, conducted between October 16 and 18 with a sample of 612 likely voters, also referenced a recent NBC poll that indicated Trump’s support among Hispanic voters is strengthening. This demographic shift could be pivotal, as nearly half of New Mexico's population identifies as Hispanic. Given that the politics of border states often revolve around issues like illegal immigration, this factor cannot be overlooked in an election cycle where such topics have dominated public discourse.

The firm further argues that the political landscape in New Mexico is shifting, drawing attention to former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s strong polling numbers in the state prior to his withdrawal from the race to endorse Trump. This move could potentially enhance Trump’s appeal among voters who may have been previously undecided or aligned with third-party candidates. In 2016, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, running as the Libertarian candidate, garnered nine percent of the vote. This statistic implies that there may be tens of thousands of voters who could tip the scales, making New Mexico a more competitive battleground, although the likelihood remains uncertain.

Despite KA Consulting's optimistic outlook, the firm stands as an outlier in a landscape where New Mexico has not cast its electoral votes for a Republican presidential candidate since 2004. That year, George W. Bush secured a narrow victory by just 6,000 votes. More recent polling tells a different story. A poll conducted for the *Albuquerque Journal* reveals that Harris is ahead by nine points, a figure that closely mirrors President Joe Biden’s significant victory in the state during the 2020 election, where Democrats won by double digits. Additionally, a local poll funded by KOB television out of Albuquerque shows Harris leading decisively by eight points.

The sentiment among many political analysts is that Trump’s chances in New Mexico remain slim. The state has a history of leaning Democratic, and its political culture is influenced by various factors, including its diverse population and the impact of national issues. Furthermore, Polymarket, one of the internet’s most prominent betting platforms, gives Harris a 90 percent chance to win New Mexico, indicating a strong consensus on her likely success.

In conclusion, while KA Consulting’s poll may suggest a tighter race, the overall landscape in New Mexico appears to favor Harris. As the election approaches, both campaigns will undoubtedly intensify their efforts to sway voters in this crucial state, but historical trends and current polling suggest that Trump faces an uphill battle in securing a win in New Mexico.

Trump Opposes Regime Change In Iran

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:50:47 GMT

State of the Union: Trump indicated that he would oppose Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.

In a podcast interview on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump expressed his opposition to regime change in Iran. Speaking on the PBD Podcast with host Patrick Bet-David, Trump was asked if he supports changing Iran’s government and restoring the Shah. He responded, “We can’t get totally involved at all, you know. We can’t even run ourselves, let’s face it.”

During the interview, Trump emphasized his desire for Iran to succeed but firmly opposed its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “The real threat isn’t global warming. The real threat is nuclear warming,” he stated, adding, “The power of nuclear weapons is obliteration.”

Trump also mentioned that his approach to Iran would differ if he were to serve a second term. “Different strategies, it all depends—very fertile mind, very different strategies,” he said when asked about his previous policies.

The conversation also covered various topics, including the war in Ukraine. Trump asserted, “I think I will settle the Russia–Ukraine conflict while I am president-elect…. I have a good relationship with both Putin and Zelensky.” He continued, “This is a war that never should have happened, and there are millions of people who are dead, far more than you’re reading about.”

Scholz Announces Readiness to Negotiate with Putin

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:48:03 GMT

State of the Union: Germany’s FM has recently indicated that Putin will not take Scholz’s phone calls.

In a speech to the Bundestag on Wednesday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz expressed his readiness to negotiate a "just peace." Notably, Scholz and Russian President Vladimir Putin have not communicated since December 2022.

Scholz affirmed his willingness to engage with Putin, stating, "If the question is whether we will also talk to the President of Russia, we say: yes, we will." However, he emphasized that any decisions would be made "in consultation with Ukraine and our closest partners," underscoring the importance of coordinated negotiations.

The chancellor also highlighted the need to prevent future conflicts in Europe, stating, "This [war] is something that should not be repeated again."

Scholz’s remarks follow weeks of speculation in the German media about his openness to negotiations with Putin. However, it remains uncertain whether Putin is willing to engage. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock noted last week that Putin appears unwilling to even have a phone conversation with the German chancellor, stating, "These days, he is no longer even prepared to speak to the German chancellor on the phone."

The Forgotten War that Made America

Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:42:15 GMT

The overlooked Creek War set the tone for America to come.

Historian Shelby Foote once remarked, “any understanding of this nation has to be based on an understanding of the Civil War.” He believed the Civil War shaped America's identity and set the stage for its emergence as a global power. However, an earlier, often overlooked conflict—the Creek War—was pivotal in establishing the U.S. as a continental force.

Today, the Creek War remains largely unknown to many Americans. The conflict, lasting just over a year, coincided with the War of 1812, which also captures little attention. Yet, as author Peter Cozzens highlights in his book A Brutal Reckoning: Andrew Jackson, the Creek Indians, and the Epic War for the American South, the Creek War fundamentally altered the course of American society. Cozzens argues it was “the most pitiless clash between American Indians and whites in U.S. history,” ultimately leading to the demise of the Creek Confederacy and granting the U.S. vast territories in Alabama and Georgia.

In the early years of the Republic, American leaders faced a daunting security landscape. The United States was surrounded by colonial powers—France, Spain, and Britain—all with military presence on the continent. In stark contrast, the U.S. had no standing army and a nascent navy. Many doubted the nation's survival, with European monarchies betting against its success.

President Thomas Jefferson expressed his primary national security worry: the threat of New Orleans, which he deemed “our natural and habitual enemy.” While the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 alleviated some fears about foreign influence, Jefferson recognized the need for a stronger presence in the West to secure American interests. As former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick noted, achieving security required territorial settlement, an often violent process.

The Creek War initially emerged from internal divisions among the Creek people. The Creeks inhabited resource-rich lands, which were highly coveted. They attempted to navigate the interests of European powers, but ultimately their strategy of neutrality proved futile. With the British gaining influence and the Spanish in decline, the pressure on Creek territory intensified, especially following the influx of American settlers into Georgia.

As divisions deepened within Creek society, pro-American and pro-British factions emerged. In 1811, the Shawnee leader Tecumseh and his brother, Tenskwatawa, inspired a movement among the Creeks to resist American encroachment, leading to the formation of the “Red Sticks,” who opposed the “White Sticks,” the latter aligning more closely with American settlers.

Tensions escalated into conflict when the Red Sticks launched attacks against their rivals in July 1813, coinciding with the War of 1812. On August 30, 1813, Red Stick leaders Peter McQueen and William Weatherford orchestrated a brutal assault on Fort Mims, where over 550 people were killed in horrific fashion. The Fort Mims Massacre shocked the nation and drew Andrew Jackson into the conflict.

Cozzens notes that Jackson’s relentless determination significantly influenced the war's outcome. Born in poverty in 1767, Jackson rose to prominence as a self-educated attorney and landowner, embodying a new American archetype. With a fierce hatred for the British and a reputation for violence, Jackson quickly mobilized his forces after the massacre.

In the months that followed, Jackson achieved victories at Tallushatchee and Talladega, and ultimately led a decisive campaign at Horseshoe Bend. His tactics of destruction forced the Red Sticks to surrender, ending the conflict by August 1814.

The Creek War was a formative experience for many future American leaders. As historian Paul Johnson noted, those who fought in the Creek War would later shape the U.S. expansion into territories like Texas. Jackson’s triumph not only earned him a promotion but also set the stage for his iconic leadership during the Battle of New Orleans, leading to his presidency. Other figures, such as Sam Houston and Davy Crockett, emerged from this conflict, while victories against Tecumseh and the British propelled leaders like William Henry Harrison and Richard M. Johnson into political prominence.

The Creek War not only catalyzed numerous political careers but also played a crucial role in America's expansion. The land gained from the Creek people paved the way for the United States to become a continental power, setting the stage for future conflicts, including the Mexican-American War and the Civil War. While Shelby Foote called the Civil War a pivotal moment in American history, the groundwork for that transformation was laid decades earlier in the violent struggles of the South.

Court Applies Environmental Law to Biden-Harris Border Disaster

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:31:25 GMT

The Biden administration unlawfully failed to perform the required environmental impact analysis before admitting millions of illegals.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality estimates that each border crosser leaves approximately six to eight pounds of trash in the desert during his or her journey. If you do the rough math, the total amount of strewn garbage caused by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas greenlighting millions of illegal migrants, all trampling their way across the southern frontier, is stunning.

Americans have probably wondered why federal environmental law does not prevent, or at least slow, Mayorkas from bringing about this mess. After all, the Biden-Harris administration has done much more than simply benignly tolerate or mildly encourage this massive human movement. The president and his cabinet have not only loudly proclaimed that they “welcome” the arrival of these illegals, but made it clear that this unprecedented immigration was central to their foreign and domestic policy. They have pushed their legal authorities beyond the limit, inventing out of thin air new immigration programs, mobilizing thousands of federal officers, and spending and reprogramming billions of dollars to make it all happen.

On our southern frontier, the resulting chaotic human activity—clandestine camping, trekking, consuming, and disposing—has had a profound impact on the natural environment as well as on towns, ranches, and small communities. Yet Biden-Harris environmental and health officials are silent about the countless heaps and tons of garbage, plastic, and abandoned human junk all over the border region.

These illegal immigrants have thrown up makeshift encampments wherever they wanted, trampled through private property, disrupted normal activities and—lacking adequate sanitary facilities—deposited human waste all along extremely vulnerable waterways, like the Rio Grande, that are already too inadequate fully to serve the desert-like region.

In normal times, in the wake of such violent human attacks on land and water, the American environmental protection community would have been on the warpath. But groups like the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society, indeed the entire establishment environmental community, have all remained silent and done nothing to respond to the Biden-Harris reckless immigration policy. Resisting this kind of fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants federal policy that enables destructive human activity hostile to the environment is, in theory, their raison d'être.

Normally, reacting to such a catastrophic environmental situation, groups like Greenpeace would be mobilizing thousands of fanatical activists, some perhaps chaining themselves to close traffic on the bridges over the Rio Grande, while a battery of lawyers from the Environmental Defense Fund would be in federal court filing lawsuits. In theory, they all sincerely believe that man-made activities like the Mayorkas migrant diaspora contribute to climate change and leave lasting damage to unspoiled natural areas.

Moreover, Biden’s “immigration program” is not only enticing waves of humanity to trample through an unprepared and vulnerable region, but it is also growing the country’s population, practically overnight, by millions of new people. For years, groups like the Sierra Club saw population growth—including by immigration—as fundamentally at odds with protecting the national environment. It is a fair question that conservatives, too, should ask: How many millions do we want living in our country?

What happened to change the environmental movement was yet another Fabian victory of wokeism ideology. Wokeism (of which open-borderism is a direct offshoot) has seriously infected and subdued the entire U.S. environmental movement. Wokeism conquered the leaders of the American environmental movement just as it did their counterparts in organized labor.

When organized labor and its traditional political allies, like Bernie Sanders, stopped resisting the open-border extremists and signed on to cheering the arrival of millions of low-skilled workers surging into the country, it was a watershed political moment. Labor’s foundational principle, which had for more than a century resisted importing cheap foreign workers, was thrown under the bus to advance open-borders in the name of wokeist social justice.

The same wokeist putsch was also occurring in the environmental movement. New woke leadership has remade the traditional green and conservationist cause so as to address the movement’s historic “exclusionary and racist ideas.” The woke executive director of the Sierra Club explains that his group now “fights for environmental and social justice.” John Muir is not to be remembered primarily for his great achievements as a naturalist and conservationist but for his unforgivable racist dicta. The environmental mission has been retrofitted into an examination of an intolerant past and atonement for its “substantial role in perpetuating white supremacy.”

That means that the green movement has simply put aside its core mission of protesting and fighting the defilement of the American environment in support of Biden-Harris-Mayorkas open borders. The establishment environmentalists will not resist nor even voice cautionary complaints as the White House is on a path to grow the U.S. population by up to 15 million new inhabitants.

Astonished and disappointed by such a transformational sellout of America’s great traditions of protecting the country’s natural bounty, one astute writer for The American Conservative explained:

For some time, environmentalists accepted that caring about population growth in the United States required caring about immigration policy. In 1989, the Sierra Club’s board adopted the policy position that “migration to the United States should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the United States.” However, by the mid-1990s, political and donor pressure convinced the Sierra Club to declare first neutrality on the immigration issue and finally, in 2013, support for amnesty.

That writer was Julie Axelrod, who is director of litigation at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Today, Axelrod is leading the CIS federal court lawsuit that asserted that the Biden administration’s open-border policies have unlawfully ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, any federal agency considering a “major federal action” must comprehensively evaluate its “environmental effects.” Axelrod’s lawsuit argued, correctly, that DHS did not do any such evaluation before encouraging, facilitating, and subsidizing millions of illegal migrants to “surge to our border.”

President Nixon signed NEPA into law in 1970. Although it has mainly been a legal tool for leftwing environmental activists to thwart economic development activities, applied wisely, the statute can undergird main-street conservative values that seek to protect local communities from radical and reckless “social justice” projects.

Main-street America’s environment is much more threatened by Washington’s extreme social justice activism than anything that comes from fracking and burning fossil fuels. Nothing illustrates this better than today’s open-border extremism which is depositing uninvited illegal foreign migrants in communities all over the country. Americans must reach for any tool, including statutes like NEPA, to resist a lawless presidency that regularly commits ultra vires acts, while an ineffectual Congress does nothing.

In Axelrod’s lawsuit, known as Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. Department of Homeland Security, a federal district court judge ruled on September 30 that DHS has indeed violated NEPA by failing to conduct the statutorily required environmental impact analysis before opening the border. For the first time, a court has applied NEPA in a way that can help to slow Washington’s massive and extreme migration policies.

Yes, Alejandro Mayorkas has an environmental law problem. If, dear reader, you feel an authentic schadenfreude moment, please enjoy it. You can thank CIS and Axelrod, who explained:

This ruling represents a victory for American citizens harmed by the Biden-Harris administration’s open-border policies and reinforces the requirement for environmental reviews in federal policy-making. It is astonishing that no major environmental group took action on this, but the Center was proud to step in and lead the charge.

The judge ruled that “Presidential administrations enjoy significant discretion in the enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws and protection of our borders. But this latitude does not license violations of other laws.”

We do not often find such wisdom on the federal bench. This is an important case to follow as it moves forward.

Walz Questioned Over China Ties and Lies

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:29:29 GMT

State of the Union: The Minnesota governor lied about trips to China and is under investigation for possible connections with the CCP.

Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Democratic candidate for vice president, made a series of false claims about his visits to China, reports show, exaggerating both the number and significance of his visits to the country. Those exaggerations came back to bite him during the vice presidential debate on Tuesday, where he was confronted over his claim to have been in China during the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Walz was forced to admit that he had not been in the country at the time, saying that he misspoke and that he can “get caught up in rhetoric.”

Walz claimed to have been in China during the famous May 1989 protests and the subsequent crackdown by the Chinese government multiple times, including on a radio interview in 2019. But investigation by Minnesota Public Radio uncovered a photo of Walz taken on May 16 of that year, which showed that during the time he was working at a National Guard Armory in Nebraska. He did go to China later that same year, in August, but this was well after the events of Tiananmen Square were over.

Walz later married his wife, Gwen, on June 4, 1994, the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and they spent their honeymoon in China leading an educational trip for students. Gwen told the Nebraska newspaper Star-Herald that the wedding date was chosen by Walz because “he wanted to have a date he’ll always remember.”

Walz has also claimed that he visited China over 30 times, but his campaign recently confirmed that this was an exaggeration. The real number, it stated, was closer to 15.

The close ties Walz has with China has brought him under scrutiny from the House Oversight Committee, which subpoenaed the Department of Homeland Security on Monday after a whistleblower claimed the department had concerns regarding Walz’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. Walz reportedly praised the communist approach of the Chinese government during at least one of his history classes in 1991, when he was a social studies teacher.

Grand Strategy Must Begin with Homeland Defense

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:28:11 GMT

Chaos at home constrains our policy abroad.

Foreign policy experts have been debating which of America’s geostrategic interests in Asia, Europe, or the Middle East should take precedence. But recent polling tells us that the American people have a totally different top priority. They want our leaders to focus more on the security of our U.S.–Mexico border.

Both the former President Donald Trump and Vice President Harris have a track record on border issues. Trump increased border protections and reduced the inflow of illegal aliens. He is credible when he promises a strong border and massive deportations of illegal aliens. The Biden-Harris administration caused and encouraged the current invasion-like 10 million border encounters with people from over 160 countries. As border czar, Harris did nothing to address this emergency. Her only border plan is to revive a proposed bill that failed to pass the Senate and was rejected by the speaker of the House.

It is clear what caused America’s border problem. Right after the inauguration, the Biden-Harris administration stopped the construction of the Trump border wall and announced a complete reversal of his border policies. Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) put it well during the vice-presidential debate: “We have a historic immigration crisis because Kamala Harris started and said that she wanted to undo all of Donald Trump's border policies. Ninety-four executive orders suspending deportations, decriminalizing illegal aliens, massively increasing the asylum fraud that exists in our system, that has opened the floodgates.”

The problem is multi-faceted and grave. It affects the safety of Americans. Just last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement admitted that as many as 425,000 illegal alien criminals are currently in the United States. Over 60,000 have been convicted of assault and 16,000 of sexual assault. Nearly 57,000 are guilty of crimes involving dangerous drugs.

Because of the collapse of order at our southern border, our border agents are spending their time processing the relentless flow of illegal aliens instead of stopping the flow of illegal drugs. As a result, fentanyl from Mexico has caused the death of over 100,000 Americans and can be rightly viewed as a weapon of mass destruction wielded against our fellow citizens.

The FBI thinks that a large number of public safety and national security threats are at elevated levels all at once. Topping the list are a terrorist attack and cartels pushing fentanyl “into every corner of our country.”

These risks and others are exacerbated when millions of illegal aliens are released into the country without proper background checks. Just last month, a report by the House Judiciary Committee documented that “during fiscal year 2024, Border Patrol has encountered tens of thousands of illegal aliens nationwide from countries that could present national security risks, including 2,134 Afghan nationals, 33,347 Chinese nationals, 541 Iranian nationals, 520 Syrian nationals, and 3,104 Uzbek nationals.” Even worse, the report also reveals that “the Biden-Harris Administration released into the United States at least three illegal aliens with potential ISIS ties after the aliens used the Administration’s CBP One app to arrive at a port of entry and be processed into the country.” In this environment, there is an increased risk of another 9/11-type attack.

The immigration problem also has a prosperity downside. There is ample evidence that adding to the workforce large numbers of low-skilled immigrants reduces the wages of working class Americans. In the 1990’s, Milton Friedman remarked, “You cannot simultaneously have a welfare state and free immigration.” Today’s immigration crisis proves him right when illegal aliens are a net fiscal drain and a heavy burden on social services like schools and health care. Furthermore, Americans have to pay more to buy a home because the housing demand by the millions of illegal aliens has pushed up prices.

In a seminal article entitled “The Return of Peace Through Strength,” the former National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien argues that President Trump’s purposeful and decisive foreign policy advanced peace for America and the world. He contrasts this with the Biden-Harris administration’s weak policies that encouraged bad actors to start hot wars in Europe and the Middle East, and to sharply increase tensions in Asia. The weak border policy is just par for the course: “The Biden administration’s inability to secure the southern U.S. border is perhaps its biggest and most embarrassing failure.”

America needs a second Trump presidency to implement urgently a decisive and comprehensive border security plan. Among the actions to be considered should be the following.

First, restart comprehensive work on the wall because walls are effective. Numerous countries around the world have reached the same conclusion. The Biden administration itself begrudgingly approved limited wall construction in Texas and Arizona. Even Harris herself flip-flopped on building a wall and is now in favor of it.

Second, reinstate the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy that the Biden-Harris administration recklessly abandoned. Asylum claimants who illegally cross the southern border should not be paroled into the U.S. and given a court date in several years, as the Biden-Harris administration has been doing. They should be processed at the U.S. border and asked to wait in Mexico for action on their asylum claim. This policy would discourage those who are not legitimate asylum seekers seeking protection from persecution but simply economic migrants trying to game the system. Government data show a success rate as low as 15 percent for those claiming asylum.

Third, the United States should take the fight to the Mexican cartels. These criminal organizations are increasing their wealth and power by smuggling into our country people and drugs, especially the deadly fentanyl. The stronger the cartels are, the more they harm the security and prosperity of the American people.

Proposals in the House and the Senate would designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. There are many issues to consider in this matter, but arguments in favor outweigh those against. Importantly, it would give the U.S. government tougher monitoring and sanctioning tools.

Trump declared his willingness, if asked by Mexico’s president, to get the U.S. military involved in fighting the drug cartels. He observed that “the cartels have become so large and powerful that you sometimes need an army to defeat an army.” He tweeted, “If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing & able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively.” This would be a repeat of the successful Plan Colombia of the early 2000’s during which the United States helped the Colombian government financially and militarily to defeat its drug cartels.

Some believe that the U.S. must go further and attack the cartels even without permission from the Mexican government. They argue that these narcoterrorist groups are more like ISIS than like the American mafia. Because they are killing Americans with their drugs, we should confront the cartels as national-security threats, not manage them as a law-enforcement matter. If in the 1990s the U.S. had taken this approach with Islamic terrorists like Al-Qaeda, we might have prevented 9/11. We cannot afford another such mistake. Action in this direction is a joint resolution proposed by Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) and Michael Waltz (R-FL) giving the president authority to use the U.S. military against Mexican cartels trafficking in fentanyl.

The chaos at our southern border and the resulting grave harm to the American people must move to the top of the list of national security concerns for the next U.S. president. Getting results will take toughness and persistence. Whom do you trust with this job, Trump or Harris?

Congress MIA on Possible U.S. War with Iran

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:25:38 GMT

Experts: They lack the guts to invoke war powers, and are out of town through election anyway.

When asked what the U.S. response might be to the Iranian airstrikes on Israel last week, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan suggested it was Washington’s war, too.

“We have made clear that there will be consequences, severe consequences, for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case,” Sullivan said during a press briefing at the White House.

To which Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) fumed on X: “Work with Israel? Excuse me, the Constitution requires you to work with Congress!”

Two days later, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) weighed in on the same platform. “Any offensive action by the U.S. against Iran would be unconstitutional without a Congressional Declaration of War,” he wrote.

Nevertheless, as talk turns to the kind of retaliation Israel might deliver against Iran for its 200 ballistic missile attacks (which Israel and U.S. both claim were “ineffective”), it is becoming clear that the U.S. might play a direct role. That was not refuted this week when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called his counterpart Yoav Gallant (he was to meet with him in Washington today, but the confab has been postponed): “I confirmed the United States commitment to Israel’s security and shared that the United States is well postured across the region to defend Israel and protect U.S. personnel and facilities.”

Even more to the point, CENTCOM commander Gen. Erik Kurilla met with Gallant in Israel and had this to say:

We discussed ongoing Iranian-backed threats to the region and efforts to stabilize the region, ensure Israel’s security, and deter Iran’s malign and reckless activities, Before departing, I reiterated the strength of our ironclad military-to-military commitment between CENTCOM and the Israeli Defense Forces.

In back-to-back radio interviews with Brian Thomas on October 2, Massie and Andrew Napolitano expressed their concern that we may wake up tomorrow and find that the Biden administration had made the executive decision to take the nation to war. “You won’t see a declaration of war because Congress doesn’t want to embarrass itself. It’ll just look the other way while the president does whatever the hell he or she wants. And that’s, to me, just frightening,” charged Napolitano.

Unfortunately given the circumstances and recent history, Napolitano is probably right—if the administration decides to let Israel drag the U.S. into direct military action with Iran, there is little Congress or anyone else will be able, or, better yet, willing, to do about it.

The executive branch has been consolidating and reaffirming its war powers over the last several decades and has not been constrained by the Constitution nor the War Powers Resolution, which was passed by Congress in 1973 to limit the president’s ability to make unilateral decisions to take and keep the country at war.

Experts point to successive presidents who have used existing Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) passed for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars to justify military operations over the last 20 years, including recent airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. They say presidents have abused their powers under Article II of the Constitution to enter into hostilities, which Congress, under the WPR, say he can only do to respond to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Whether the Houthi attacks on global shipping, which the Yemeni militants say will continue until there is a ceasefire in Gaza, are an imminent threat to the U.S., is up for debate. The White House claims that it is a threat to the global economy, regional security, and, once the U.S. Navy got involved and had been sporadically fired upon, American security interests too. The administration has invoked its Article II powers and filed required reports to Congress under the WPR for different strikes, including several against militants in Iraq and Syria over the last year.

This allows the administration to keep “stopping and setting” the 60-day clock for Congressional action or as experts call “salami-slicing.” The AUMFs have been used as ancillary statutory authorities if that clock runs out, as well. This was done in the Trump administration, too.

“Finding the statute” is what former State Department legal adviser Brian Finucane calls it. “Through creative interpretations of the War Powers Resolution and the 2001 AUMF and now the 2002 AUMF as well, this White House like its predecessors has been able to involve and keep U.S. troops in wars that Congress never specifically authorized,” he wrote back in January.

Other than lambasting the president in the media during the initial Yemen airstrikes in January, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have not raised the issue in terms of forcing a vote under the WPR to declare war—or not—in the current Middle East hostilities. (An attempt by Paul, however, to bring home the approximately 900 U.S. troops in Syria using the WPR failed to pass the Senate in December.)

Outside organizations warn that “a new endless war” will be Biden’s legacy, signing a letter to the president on October 3: “We urge you to recognize and respect that Congress has not authorized military force against Iran or militias backed by Iran, and that any potential military action against Iran could only proceed following a debate and passage of a war authorization before entering our troops into any imminent hostilities in the region.” (Disclosure: The letter was signed by the author’s employer, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft).

But without a forceful response from Congress — and even then — it would seem war is the prerogative of the executive today. Constitutional law expert Bruce Fein balks at the irony.

“In 2007 while seeking the Democratic Party nomination as president, Biden shrieked on Chris Matthews’s Hardball that he would lead the charge for President Bush’s impeachment and removal from office if he attacked Iran without a prior declaration of war,” Fein told The American Conservative in an email.

“Biden, days ago, attacked Iranian missiles in collaboration with Israel with the Navy’s AEGIS ballistic missile defense, an act of war not authorized or declared by Congress. Under Biden’s own impeachment standards loudly trumpeted in 2007, Biden himself has committed an impeachable offense,” he added. “Congress should be demanding that Biden testify before Congress to explain the constitutionality of what he has already done in light of Biden’s 2007 statements as President Ford was summoned to explain to the House Judiciary Committee his pardon of former President Nixon. Congressional complacency with presidential usurpations of its war power is stunning.”

The complacency is helped along by the fact that both chambers are out of session until after the election. Numerous offices contacted by TAC on both sides of the partisan aisle Monday either did not respond or said they could not comment on the possibility of the U.S. going to war without Congressional authorization.

“In essence we were under the leadership of a king,” said the radio host Brian Thomas. “In that regard, no accountability, no representation by our elected officials, no say in the matter. We’re going to drop bombs. This has come up in the context of us doing just random missile strikes and in any given land we find somebody that we don’t like.”

The Vibes Have Run Out For Kamala Harris

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:23:58 GMT

The vice president struggles to find footing in softball media appearances.

Well, we now know why Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign wasn’t eager to rush her out in front of the cameras for media interviews.

Sitting with the ladies of The View, which is hardly entering the lions’ den for a Democrat (even the primary conservative co-host is a Harris supporter), she promptly produced a clip tailor-made for a Donald Trump campaign ad. Asked if there was anything she would have done differently than departing President Joe Biden over the last four years, Harris replied, “There is nothing that comes to mind.”

Harris cleaned up a bit by repeating that she would appoint a Republican to her Cabinet. She appears to believe that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, or at least their fans, are the most coveted swing voters in this election. Perhaps she is correct, though the liberal replies to a Washington Post reporter’s social media post about this exchange were fairly unhinged.

Confronted about the woeful Biden-Harris record at the border on 60 Minutes, the vice president had no real answer as to whether the administration had been too lax for most of its term. But this back-and-forth also illustrated the basic fraudulence of her attempts to blame the border on Trump killing a flawed Senate bill she has been pushing.

Biden was able to bring down illegal immigration through executive actions without this legislation. Trump was able to even more substantially reduce the flow at the border without this legislation. Biden and Harris made certain enforcement and policy choices that were at their discretion. These, as much as the problems in the Northern Triangle that were not resolved by Harris’s diplomacy, are the real “root causes” of the border crisis.

Harris made plain that her “solution” to illegal immigration is to have Congress pass an amnesty bill, which she noted that she and Biden had proposed upon taking office. That proposal, along with ending Trump policies like Remain in Mexico and restoring catch-and-release for apprehended migrants, also incentivized much illegal immigration. Migrants believed if they could make it into the United States under Biden and Harris, they had a better chance of being allowed to stay than under Trump.

Then there was Harris’s answer that she owns a Glock as her personal firearm. This specific weapon choice raises questions about her record on gun control. She has supported handgun bans and filed an amicus brief arguing against the Supreme Court majority’s position in District of Columbia v. Heller. Dick Heller was trying to purchase a Glock for self-defense in the nation’s capital.

One of Harris’s better moments was when she taunted Trump on Howard Stern for not appearing on 60 Minutes himself. “Ultimately, I do believe that this is an election that is about strength versus weakness, and weakness as projected by someone who puts himself in front of the American people and does not have the strength to stand in defense of their needs, their dreams, their desires,” she said.

Even that answer contained a healthy serving of Harris’s signature word salad and it also required a certain amount of prodding from Stern, who has hosted Trump many times over the years before the shock jock adopted a more woke personae. Harris demonstrated in her one (and likely only) debate of this election cycle that she can deliver canned anti-Trump lines and get under his skin effectively. Substance is another story.

It’s possible this won’t matter much as the presidential race enters the homestretch. But the sudden resort to a busier media schedule appears to be a concession that her reprise of the Biden basement strategy was no longer working.

Harris’s running mate Tim Walz lost the vice presidential debate to J.D. Vance. This was at least partly attributable to the fact that the Minnesota governor wasn’t doing many media interviews, while Vance was sitting down with hostile hosts regularly. Walz couldn’t do more interviews because he didn’t want to upstage the top of the ticket.

Trump is doing a lot of friendly interviews and podcasts too, but we have seen him do hostile interviews before, and he is already more of a known commodity. Even this year, the Univision town hall and sit-down with the National Association of Black Journalists were far riskier for Trump to agree to than Harris.

To paraphrase James Taylor, Harris can run for president but she cannot hide. At least not forever.

America’s Greatest Tradition

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:20:28 GMT

Curiosity and intellectual ambition are what made this country great.

This is a speech about achieving the impossible.

My parents came to this country with no money, and I’ve founded multibillion-dollar companies. I’ve written multiple bestselling books. Last year, at age 37, I became the youngest person ever to run for U.S. president as a Republican. At the start of the campaign, no one knew my name; by the end of it, I had beaten out multiple senators, governors, and a former vice president. I did all of that with my lovely wife Apoorva, herself a successful throat surgeon, while raising our two sons in Ohio.

But all of that pales in comparison to the one achievement that I thought was truly impossible: most of you now know how to actually pronounce my name. Vivek, like “cake.” Ramaswamy—like “Ramaswamy.”

But my speech today isn’t about me. It’s about all of you. You’re entering your adulthood at a truly special moment in American history. I believe deep in my heart that it’s actually going to be your generation that saves our country. It wouldn’t be the first time that it happened. That was all the way back to 1776.

Though I’m talking about our own Founding Fathers, I’ll start with a quote often attributed to the founder of Dubai:

My father rode a camel, I ride a Mercedes, my son rides a Land Rover, and my grandson is going to ride a Land Rover, but my great-grandson is going to have to ride a camel again. Hard times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.

He was the founder of Dubai, but he may as well have been speaking about our generation of Americans.

When our nation was born in 1776, we were a nation of underdogs. We were a nation of insurgents. Our Founding Fathers stood up to the most powerful empire in the world, declared their independence, and then somehow turned assertion into reality. They were a band of rebels who defeated the reigning incumbent of their era, an incumbent that went on to become just another small nation on the other side of an ocean.

But eventually, the insurgent becomes the incumbent. The underdog becomes the favorite. And the new incumbent starts to apologize for its own success, instead of working even harder to create even more of it. Eventually, that incumbent is unseated by a new insurgent born on the other side of a different ocean.

Personally, I think that’s what many of us sensed when we heard the call to Make America Great Again several years ago. But here’s what we missed: In order to know how to make America great again, we have to first know the story of what made America great the first time. That’s the story of our nation’s history. It’s a story we’ve forgotten. Malcolm X famously said a nation without history is like a tree without roots: It’s dead.

One of the things that I think we’ve lost in modern history is an aspect of our founding culture that’s personally important to me, one that we’ve abandoned in recent years, one that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

It’s the death of intellectual curiosity in America.

If you think about who were the most intellectually groundbreaking thinkers of the 18th century, they definitely weren’t our Founding Fathers. Most of them were on the other side of the Atlantic.

They were the likes of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Hume who led the way in philosophy and sociology; Newton and Leibniz in math and physics; Adam Smith in economics and psychology.

The thing that distinguished our Founding Fathers wasn’t their genius in any of these disciplines. They weren’t mathematical or philosophical savants; but they learned from the people who were. And what really distinguished our Founding Fathers was their ability to combine those intellectual foundations with a vision for the future that simply didn’t exist in the Old World.

Locke and Leibniz, Newton and Hume—these men were true geniuses. But the European society into which they were born was different from ours in a fundamental way: They valued hierarchy and expertise over curiosity. The monarchs and aristocrats who were supposed to run the government ran the government. The people who were supposed to philosophize about economics and sociology philosophized about it. But they weren’t the same people. And the people who were supposed to make discoveries in math or invent new tools were in a different place altogether. Virtually everyone stayed in their lane.

You see, the Old World was reluctant to break down boundaries. Boundaries, they thought, existed for a reason. The ruling class existed to rule; the expert class existed to advise them; the doctors’ guild exists to treat patients; the guild of barristers exists to argue cases in court. It was a culture that revered expertise over curiosity.

But our Founding Fathers had a different vision, one without those boundaries. They didn’t even really believe in acquiescence to expertise. They believed that no man was confined to the circumstances of birth and upbringing, and that each of us is so much more than just a product of what we happen to be doing at a given moment.

For example, you all surely know that Benjamin Franklin—one of the co-authors of our nation’s Declaration of Independence—was a veritable renaissance man, who, in addition to founding universities and hospitals, was also a prolific author, a dabbler in medicine who discovered a treatment for the common cold, and a creator of musical instruments—including one instrument that went on to be used by Mozart and Beethoven. Some of his devices were incredibly practical—a lightning rod for the home, bifocal glasses, and the Franklin stove, a practical tool for heating houses, derived from recent breakthroughs in the field of thermodynamics. Benjamin Franklin was the archetype of the 18th-century polymath; I think most of you know that.

But here’s the remarkable part: he wasn’t an exception. He was the norm. Five men served on the committee which drafted the Declaration and all were similar in their intellectual versatility. Take the two lesser-known members: Robert Livingston and Roger Sherman. Livingston worked with Robert Fulton to build the first steam ship—a fundamental building block of the Industrial Revolution—as a side project, while serving as an ambassador to France. Sherman, who was also a signatory to the Constitution, was a self-educated attorney who never actually went to college or studied law. He taught himself in the library of his local parish minister while working as a shoemaker. He wanted future Americans to have greater access to education, and he ended up serving on the governing body of Yale.

And of course, in addition to Franklin, Livingston, and Sherman, there were the two most famous drafters of the Declaration—John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, bitter rivals in politics but close friends in retirement. Jefferson’s interests were more scientific, while Adams was more drawn to the humanities. But they were each deeply curious about everything, and unafraid to compete with one another intellectually.

One of the famous quotes attributed to John Adams is that:

I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.

But that was a bit of a humble-brag on his part. It’s true that Adams studied politics and war, but he also studied math and philosophy. And also poetry, while being educated in Greek, Latin, and the other classics. In fact, a little-known fact about Adams that I personally find very interesting is that, after serving as our second President, he immersed himself in Hindu scripture, and wrote to Jefferson in a letter that, were he to live again, he’d have studied Sanskrit literature. The man was a lifelong learner.

And so was his great rival. Jefferson was fluent in five languages and capable of reading two more. Over the course of his life, he wrote 16,000 letters. Students in the year 2024 could be forgiven for thinking that means 16,000 letters—that’s like 4,000 words—which sounds doable enough! But no; I’m talking about 16,000 full-length letters, as in essays. That’s basically unheard-of by today’s standards.

You might wonder if it was uncomfortable for him to sit in a chair for so long while writing. Well, it turns out he solved that problem by inventing the swivel chair, which he supposedly built and used to write the Declaration of Independence. He was also an amateur architect. The Virginia Capitol building, standing right here in the state where we are gathered today, was designed by Thomas Jefferson.

Both Jefferson and Adams had to spend large sums of money to build their own personal libraries, to continue their learning. In fact, Jefferson almost went bankrupt several times. It’s easy to make fun of him for his taste in wine, but he wasn’t just a drinker of wine; he was a scientist of wine too, traveling to southern France to learn about wine production and to figure out how to build a homegrown industry right here in the United States. It was knowledge-directed at every step of the way; the fact that it sometimes left you drunk was, the French like to say, merely an unintended side effect.

There was something in the water back then; something in the culture. It was a culture that valued education; autodidacts; exploration; a fundamental curiosity about how the world works; and an unyielding confidence that even if you weren’t an expert in something, you could still figure it out with the right combination of self-education and curiosity.

Compared to nations like France and England, it’s true that America was provincial at the time. We were nothing more than a backwater cluster of small towns scattered along an eastern seaboard. Economically, militarily, and geopolitically, it seemed that we were destined to be nothing more than a footnote in global history. Yet the people who wrote those footnotes were deeply curious about the world they inhabited; about the history to which they contributed; and deeply confident in their ability to change every part of it for the better.

So what’s the message for us? We need to revive that special combination of curiosity and confidence. Yes, we want to be a country of people who tinker in their garages. We want people who write great essays in the evenings, while working at insurance companies during the day. We should expect more of one another as citizens. We should expect more of ourselves. We should expect more of our leaders. Back then, presidents who left the White House went on to study ancient works in Sanskrit; today, they sign Netflix deals and play a round of golf.

It’s easy to say “how cool were our Founding Fathers,” and then go back to the daily drudgery of our modern technocracy. But why can’t we behave like our Founding Fathers? Political conservatives talk a lot about staying true to the political and legal principles in the Constitution, and no doubt that’s important—but as Americans, we should also be inspired to stay true to our founding culture of exploration and curiosity.

The irony is that it should be a lot easier for us to do that today than it was for them back then. For starters, the main languages of scholarship in 1776 were French and Latin, and you had to wait weeks or even months to procure a physical copy of a book that you might have wanted to read. Today, almost everything is available in any language you want, and you’re two swipes on your iPhone away from any book you want to read on demand. The only thing stopping us is our own incuriosity, our own veneration of someone else’s expertise, and our own lack of confidence to build our own.

You might expect that our Founding Fathers didn’t have the time—as they were fighting the Revolutionary War and then setting up a new nation—to afford the luxuries of intellectual curiosity. Yet actually, the opposite was true. We were never more curious than when we were fighting for our survival. The special sauce that allowed America to succeed as an insurgent was the unmitigated curiosity and the unjustified confidence of our Founding Fathers.

And it wasn’t just a matter of self-indulgence. The reason our Founding Fathers were so curious about the world around them wasn’t just to get drunk on it. It’s because they strived to make America, their nation, a better nation. It wasn’t idle interest that moved them; it was a desire to create a thriving country that would outlive them.

And they made that country great. They drew minds as curious and courageous as their own. Joseph Priestley, a pioneering chemist, held beliefs well outside the mainstream of English religious thought. In 1791, a mob looted and razed his home to the ground. He fled England to Pennsylvania, where he was welcomed with open arms. This brilliant scientist moved to America precisely for our free society, inaugurating a tradition that so many others, including my own parents, have continued to follow for centuries. My parents came here for the same reason that Joseph Priestley did: Ours is a free society where creative people are able to pursue their dreams however they see fit.

Priestley didn’t come to America for our academic institutions or funding; in fact, we had neither of those things back then. It’s because he had freedom—freedom to explore ideas without fear of being attacked or locked up. Freedom to be himself, including even the freedom to discover who he was. That’s the unspoken part of the American dream: not just the freedom to achieve whatever you want, but also the freedom to discover what it is you want to achieve.

It’s precisely at the moment when we stopped being insurgents and started becoming incumbents ourselves that we lost that sense of curiosity and lost that sense of confidence. Why can’t we just remain an incumbent and enjoy it while it lasts? Because pretty soon, we’ll become the Great Britain to someone else’s insurgency. It’s already starting to happen.

The way we remain a magnet for the most curious and ambitious people around the world is by cultivating the culture that drew Priestley here, the same culture that drew my own parents here. A culture that prizes free and open debate and inquiry; a culture that doesn’t force a monolithic cultural ideology on everyone; a culture that doesn’t force you to bow down to what a politically appointed expert says on a given day, but instead gives you the latitude to question dogmas in the pursuit of truth.

That’s the greatest thing our Founding Fathers invented. It wasn’t a lightning rod or a stove. It was a country that offered freedom of thought, the greatest invention of their era, the one that enabled so many others. That’s the invention we risk losing in a country that focuses on suppressing dissent instead of fostering creativity. Can we sustain that special combination of curiosity and confidence? That’s the defining question of our era, and the answer starts with how we educate the next generation.

Those who object to this vision as the exclusive north star for educating our children will say that it’s not enough for our schools and universities to teach our children to be intellectually curious, courageous, and confident, but that we must also teach them to be socially just, and to rectify the injustices created by the likes of our Founding Fathers, who blindly pursued enlightenment without actually abiding by the values that they preached.

Yet I’d argue precisely the opposite: that intellectual curiosity and courage, combined with a willingness to traverse boundaries that go beyond your preordained area of “expertise,” beyond your own “lane,” is the most important building block of empathy. And that empathy is the most important building block of justice. The arc of the moral universe is long, Martin Luther King said, but it bends towards justice. I believe empathy is the force that causes it to bend, and I believe that the foundation of empathy is curiosity.

So what’s the take-home message from this reflection on our Founders? I’ll leave you with a few.

First, it takes about as much effort to do something really small, and to do it well, as it does to do something really big, and to do it well. We’re all given a short time on this Earth. It’s your choice as to whether you want to do the small thing or the big thing. There’s no right answer. But as someone who ran for president at 37, I can tell you that I have my bias.

Second, when the pack runs in one direction, my advice to you is to run the other way. That’s what our Founding Fathers did. Today, calling the other side “weird” is considered a political insult. I’m sure you hear a lot about how “weird” Liberty University is. I’m sure it’s irritating when rival schools mock your beliefs by “coincidentally” scheduling their Pride Day the same day they face Liberty in football. But don’t be afraid of being called “weird.” The Founders would have worn that label as a badge of honor. They ended up winning the American Revolution. And Liberty ended up beating UMass.

For most of human history, the idea that you get to express your opinion, no matter what it is, was a truly weird idea. The idea that we the people create a government accountable to us, rather than the other way around, was downright strange. But that’s what made America great the first time around. And reviving that is how we’ll make America great again.

Third, if you ever find yourself to be the smartest person in a room, then find a different room. I studied biology, worked at a hedge fund, went to law school for fun, started a biotech company, started a health technology company, left all that behind to write a few books, then started an asset management firm before running for U.S. President. Don’t make your identity a product of your occupation. You’re so much more than one thing you happen to be doing at a given time.

And there’s no better time to cultivate that sense of adventure and curiosity than in college. You can take a random elective. Join a club. Learn an instrument. Or go on a service trip, whether that’s halfway around the world or as close by as Boone, North Carolina, where I’ve just learned a team of Liberty students is heading to help with hurricane relief. So what am I going to do next? Well, that’s my final lesson for you—and I’m pretty sure it'd be one that Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin would affirm if they were here with us today: every time I’ve made an elaborate plan for how my career would go, it never went according to plan anyway. Your plans are silly! But your purpose isn’t. Find your true purpose, and the plan tends to reveal itself for you every time.

We have a longstanding tradition in our country of those who return to public service, even after having successfully served at the highest level. So I’ll close with the story of our first President who wasn’t a Founding Father, but who—perhaps like all of you—took inspiration from them anyway. That was John Quincy Adams.

John Quincy Adams was educated by his abolitionist father and went on to serve in Congress after serving as president. He courageously spoke out freely in the tradition of his father’s contemporaries on the Congress floor in defiance of the gag rule when debating slavery. He had a stroke and died in the middle of giving a speech on the Congress floor, and his funeral rites were led by a then little-known first term Congressman by the name of Abraham Lincoln.

That’s American history. That’s American exceptionalism. That’s what I’m asking you to revive. That’s what it’s going to take to remain a nation of insurgents.

Why Is Harris Obsessed With Iran?

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:17:45 GMT

The U.S. Vice President and the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, showed a worryingly shallow grasp of the nation’s national security challenges by calling Iran America’s “greatest adversary” in a Tuesday interview with CBS News’s 60 Minutes. She elaborated that “Iran has American blood on its hands” and referred to the “200 ballistic missiles” it fired on Israel.

In a world of a great-power rivalry with the nuclear-armed peer competitors China and Russia, to present a remote Middle Eastern country—hobbled by a plethora of U.S. sanctions, highly vulnerable to alleged acts of sabotage by Israel, with literally no allies besides militias in a handful of failed states—as the main threat to the United States is entirely absurd. Even with its arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones, Iran is no threat to the U.S., which it has no capability and no interest to attack.

Rather, the only conceivable threat from Iran to the U.S. comes from the Iranian proxy groups in Syria and Iraq—it is in those countries where Iran, presumably, got its hands soaked in that American blood. The question that she ought to be asking is, Why are American troops still in those lands? With the boiling tensions between Israel and Iran, and the nearly unconditional support that the Biden administration is offering Israel, those U.S. soldiers have merely become targets for attacks by an array of pro-Iranian Shiite groups in Iraq and Syria, with no discernible upside for Washington.

Harris’s second argument of why Iran represents a particularly acute threat didn’t have anything to do with the U.S. interests at all, but rather with a country with which the U.S. doesn’t even have a formal security alliance: Israel. Iran’s attack on Israel is certainly a concerning development from the point of view of regional security.

It has to be viewed in an overall context of mounting tensions, the escalation of which Israel contributed to by lethally attacking the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, assassinating Hamas’s political leader in Tehran on the day of the inauguration of the Iranian president Massoud Pezeshkian, and moving the goalposts in Lebanon from ensuring that the Israeli residents of the regions adjacent to the Lebanese border could return to their homes to seeking a destruction of Hezbollah, a key ally for Tehran. Whatever the rationale behind the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bellicosity, Harris never explained how supporting it all the way, while risking being drawn in a war with Iran, serves an American interest.

As the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy’s Arta Moeini quipped, such “nonsensical statements are good for the Iranian ego, but they are fantasy at best and fear-mongering at worst….They show Harris’s lack of elementary knowledge of international politics, not to mention a basic sense of proportion and common sense”.

Some observers, like the Stimson Center’s Emma Ashford, see a possible electoral motivation behind Harris’s fresh hawkishness. Nevertheless, Ashford is also skeptical that swinging so hard in that direction—including boasting endorsements from such war hawks as the former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, the former Rep. Liz Cheney—will attract many voters.

That would be a good occasion for Harris’s Republican opponent Donald Trump to chart a course in an opposite direction. As the conservative restrainer William Ruger, Trump’s nominee for the post of the ambassador in Afghanistan during his presidency, advised, Trump should talk about how “he isn’t going to send our children, our brothers, our sisters, our fathers, and our mothers into more wars disconnected from our core national interests”.

Trump himself occasionally displayed a restrained streak. Nevertheless, the Republican party still, by and large, views Iran as a bogeyman. Trump, while in theory opposed to “forever wars,” just carelessly advised Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as a response to Iran’s firing of missiles on Israel, and “worry about the rest later”. That is highly irresponsible advice, as Iran promised to retaliate further for any Israeli strike. This could lead to an all-out regional war in the Middle East which Trump would have to deal with should he be elected in November.

In fact, during his presidency Trump already tried a “strike first and think later” approach: when he ordered the assassination of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards' commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani in 2020. By sheer luck, Iranian retaliation did not claim any American lives then, and Trump, much to his obvious relief, did not have to commit the U.S. to a war with Iran.

Such luck may not accompany U.S. presidents forever. It is therefore incumbent on them, whether Democratic or Republican, to avoid needless belligerence towards Iran, particularly on behalf of third countries. Washington and Tehran are unlikely to be friends in the foreseeable future—political obstacles for that are just too high on both sides—but there is no challenge Iran currently presents that would require the U.S. to go to war. The first step to recognizing that reality would be to challenge Harris’s mindless threat-inflation.

Middle-class wages aren’t keeping up. Some economists say policy is suppressing pay growth

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:13:42 GMT

Between 1979 and 2024, productivity in the U.S. soared by 80.9%, while hourly pay grew by just 29.4%, according to research by the Economic Policy Institute.

This trend has often been referred to as wage stagnation. But more recently, some economists have suggested that deliberate policy decisions have actively suppressed workers’ wage growth.

One reason might be the unreasonably high rate of unemployment in the U.S.

“Economists produce this thing they call the natural rate of unemployment,” explained Josh Bivens, the chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “It’s like the lowest unemployment can go without generating inflation.”

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the natural rate of unemployment has hovered between 4.5% and 5.5% throughout history. But since 1979, the U.S. has spent far more time with actual unemployment well above that estimated natural rate.

This has real-world consequences for the American middle-class because wages tend to grow faster during periods when unemployment is low.

“The best bargaining chip any employee has to getting wage growth is going to the boss and saying, ‘I’m going to go somewhere else unless I make more money,’” said Bivens. “And that’s just not a credible threat when unemployment is high.”

China’s economy is in bad shape. Can its ‘whatever-it-takes’ stimulus effort turn things around?

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:04:22 GMT

After four miserable years, a soaring stock market has brought relief for Francis Lun, who runs a small 10-person brokerage in Hong Kong.

Since the beginning of 2020, he’s seen the city’s lifeblood, its Hang Seng Index, experience an unprecedented consecutive decline due to economic woes and pandemic restrictions, both in the semi-autonomous region and in mainland China.

But the benchmark’s fortunes were unexpectedly turned around in late September when China’s top leaders announced a raft of measures to support the country’s flailing economy. The index has since rallied more than 18%, its biggest two-week gain in nearly 20 years. The stimulus measures should have come far sooner, says Lun, but better late than never.

“Before (the announcement), we were just counting our fingers every day,” he told CNN in his office in the Causeway Bay neighborhood, referring to the lack of business. “But now, we’re getting calls. Things are picking up.”

Hong Kong and China markets are on a roll. But whether the rally continues and, more importantly, whether benefits from the stimulus measures spread beyond stock investors and into the real economy, which is suffering from a potential deflationary spiral and is at risk of missing its own 5% target growth rate, depends on what hasn’t yet been said.

So far, the measures announced have focused on monetary policy, which typically refers to decisions made by central banks to influence the cost of borrowing and control inflation. Beijing has largely held back on unveiling fiscal measures, which can include the use of taxation or other measures to impact public spending.

“The elephant in the room seems to be a lack of consumer confidence,” economists at Nikko Asset Management wrote in a research note on Thursday. “What is really needed is for the authorities to deploy the proverbial ‘big guns’ to push out more fiscal policies. Such a move could address this crisis of confidence, improve risk appetite and reflate the economy.”

Ray Dalio, founder of the world’s biggest hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, said in a social media post last week that this could be China’s “whatever it takes” moment, if its leaders end up doing “a lot more” than what’s already been announced.

That could come as early as Tuesday, when the country’s top economic planning agency, the National Development Reform Commission, holds a press briefing to announce a package of policies to boost the economy.

There’s much debate among economists about exactly what Beijing needs to do. But one thing is clear: After years of delay, the leadership appears to be moving decisively.

That conclusion comes from the optics of how the “rare” joint press conference between the People’s Bank of China Governor Pan Gongsheng, National Financial Regulatory Administration Minister Li Yunze and China Securities Regulatory Commission Chairman Wu Qing took place on September 24, according to Nikko’s economists.

“In an opaque system where every little action is intensely scrutinized, the first thing we noticed was the manner that the official announcement was made. Gone are the days of trying to decipher tersely worded statements, which left much room for interpretation,” they wrote.

The three financial chiefs directly addressed local and international journalists at the hastily arranged event, which indicated an intention to be transparent about such a major policy shift, they added.

Pan announced a cut in one of its main interest rates and reduced the amount of cash that banks need to hold in reserve. He also unveiled cuts to existing mortgage rates and lowered the minimum mortgage downpayment from 25% to 15% for second-time homebuyers to support the ailing property sector, which many economists believe is the root cause of China’s numerous economic woes.

“This time is different,” HSBC economists led by Jing Liu said last week in an investor note, which called the press conference unusual. “Everything seems like it’s happening all at once. But it’s still just the beginning.”

The investment bank is expecting Beijing to announce one trillion yuan ($142 billion) worth of fiscal spending on consumer products or large construction projects, which will directly stimulate the economy.

Another one trillion yuan may be set aside for recapitalizing banks or helping indebted local governments to issue bonds. The latter won’t give a direct boost to the economy but could help avoid financial risk, HSBC added.

Reuters reported on September 26 that China plans to issue special sovereign bonds worth about 2 trillion yuan ($284 billion) later this year as part of a fresh package of fiscal stimulus measures.

Money raised from special bonds issued by the Ministry of Finance will be used to increase subsidies to encourage people to buy bigger or newer appliances like washing machines or refrigerators, and also to upgrade large-scale business equipment, it said citing unnamed sources.

Some of the money will also fund a monthly allowance of about 800 yuan ($114) per child to all families for each second child and any younger siblings.

Some economists think the Chinese leadership under Xi Jinping can afford to be much more ambitious with its money.

Jia Kang, formerly the director of a think tank affiliated with the Ministry of Finance, told The Paper, a state-owned newspaper, last week that the recent “amplification” of monetary policy was necessary, and that fiscal policy must keep up.

He said Beijing should issue as much as 10 trillion yuan ($1.4 trillion) in long-term government bonds, specifically to fund investment in the necessary infrastructure and public works that private companies are unable to finance.

Jia, currently president of the China Academy of New Supply-side Economics, a private think tank, was quoted as saying the potential bond issuance of up to 10 trillion yuan was “not unreasonable” because China had done something similar before.

Back in 2008, the country rolled out a four trillion yuan ($570 billion) fiscal package to minimize the impact of the global financial crisis. Jia said China’s economy had expanded sufficiently since then to support the issuance of Treasury bond financing between four trillion to 10 trillion yuan.

Analysts at Barclays said a 10 trillion-yuan fiscal package spread over two years would have a major effect on the economy, adding one full percentage point to growth, but that the plan was just “speculation” for now.

Any meaningful stimulus measures must tackle the problem of oversupply in the property market, experts said.

“The policy pivot … is serious. It has already led to an encouragingly sharp rally in Chinese stocks that could run further in the short term,” Chi Lo of BNP Paribas Asset Management said last week. “But conviction for a turnaround is still needed to sustain the recovery in the Chinese economy and asset markets.”

This avoidable spending habit is creating a retirement ‘crisis,’ financial expert warns

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:01:55 GMT

37% of Americans owe more on credit cards than they have in their retirements savings, Ramsey survey says

According to Bankrate, more than half of Americans fell behind on their retirement savings, and 37% owe more on credit cards than they have saved for their golden years.

Personal finance expert George Kamel is sounding the alarm about this looming "crisis," arguing that America has become the "land of the free and home of the broke."

"It's turning into a retirement crisis. And Gen X is the next step," Kamel stressed during an appearance on "Mornings with Maria." "Gen X is saying they're going to need a miracle to retire. They're saying they need $1.5, $1.6 million to retire comfortably. And yet the median for 401(k) balance[s] is $56,000. So we've got to do something about this."

Kamel believes investing could help.

"This might be you. It might be your parents, it might be the ones after you, but you've got to do something about it. And if you don't invest anything, you won't have any money later on."

"There's a level of cynicism, and there is some reality to that,"

- Personal finance expert George Kamel

Younger generations have become increasingly "cynical" about the U.S. economy, with many opting out of homeownership altogether.

"They're feeling hopeless. I mean, they're looking at home values, they're going, 'Well, that'll never be me, I guess I'll rent forever.' So there's a level of cynicism and there is some reality to that. It is harder for them to get in the housing market. But as far as investing goes, they actually want to know," he said Friday.

"They want to get to where their parents were, but they want it to take five years instead of 25 or 30 years. They've got to go, 'What's going to happen 30 years from now if I don't invest? What's going to happen if I'm the hare instead of the tortoise?' There's a lot of things you can do to invest and build wealth in a very risk-free way where you're not sort of just ‘Hail Mary-ing’ your retirement."

Kamel also pointed out the importance of tackling one obstacle at a time to build your nest egg, beginning with debt.

"I found when you do seven things at once, you don't really accomplish anything. So if you've got consumer debt, you have to tackle that first because it's robbing your ability to invest for the future. Once you knock out that thousand dollars in payments you're sending to lenders, you can then invest $1,000. Even if you start at 40 with $0, you can still retire a net worth millionaire if you just get out of that debt in a few years and get focused," Kamel concluded.

Court Applies Environmental Law to Biden-Harris Border Disaster

Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:08:50 GMT

The Biden administration unlawfully failed to perform the required environmental impact analysis before admitting millions of illegals.

Astonished and disappointed by such a transformational sellout of America’s great traditions of protecting the country’s natural bounty, one astute writer for The American Conservative explained:

Yes, Alejandro Mayorkas has an environmental law problem. If, dear reader, you feel an authentic schadenfreude moment, please enjoy it. You can thank CIS and Axelrod, who explained:

We do not often find such wisdom on the federal bench. This is an important case to follow as it moves forward.

Berkshire slashes Bank of America stake to under 10%

Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:01:18 GMT

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has reduced its stake in Bank of America to below 10% amid a selling spree that started in mid-July.

In a Thursday night filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Buffett disclosed the sale of more than 9.5 million shares, split between three transactions made from Tuesday to Thursday. The move brings his holdings down to 775 million shares, or a stake of about 9.987%.

Since the holding is now under the key 10% threshold, Berkshire

is no longer required to report its related transactions in a timely manner. The SEC requires shareholders who own more than 10% of a company’s equity securities to report transactions involving that company’s equity within two business days.

Buffett watchers won’t find out the Oracle of Omaha’s next moves for a while. The next 13F filing in mid-November will only reveal Berkshire’s equity holdings as of the end of September. Berkshire remains BofA’s biggest institutional investor.

Shares of the bank have inched up about 1% in the past month despite Berkshire’s selling. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan previously said the market is absorbing the stock, aided by the bank’s own repurchasing.

Buffett famously bought $5 billion of Bank of America preferred stock and warrants in 2011 to shore up confidence in the embattled lender in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis. He converted the warrants to common stock in 2017, making Berkshire the largest shareholder in the bank. Buffett then added 300 million more shares to his bet in 2018 and 2019.

‘Very cautious’

The recent BofA sales came after Buffett spent the past few years dumping a variety of longtime holdings in the banking industry, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp. The Berkshire CEO struck a pessimistic tone last year when he opined on 2023′s banking crisis.

“You don’t know what has happened to the stickiness of deposits at all,” Buffett said. “It got changed by 2008. It’s gotten changed by this. And that changes everything. We’re very cautious in a situation like that about ownership of banks.”

Buffett believes bank failures in 2008 during the global financial crisis, and again in 2023, lessened confidence in the system, made worse by poor messaging by regulators and politicians. Meanwhile, digitalization and fintech made bank runs a simple matter at times of crisis.

Boeing will lay off 10% of employees as a strike shuts down airplane production

Sun, 13 Oct 2024 14:59:40 GMT

Boeing plans to lay off about 10% of its workers in the coming months, about 17,000 people, as it continues to lose money and tries to deal with a strike that is crippling production of the company’s best-selling airline planes.

New CEO Kelly Ortberg told staff in a memo Friday that the job cuts will include executives, managers and employees.

Boeing had already imposed rolling temporary furloughs, but Ortberg said those will be suspended because of the impending layoffs.

The company will further delay the rollout of a new plane, the 777X, to 2026 instead of 2025. It will also stop building the cargo version of its 767 jet in 2027 after finishing current orders.

Boeing has lost more than $25 billion since the start of 2019.

About 33,000 union machinists have been on strike since Sept. 14. Two days of talks this week failed to produce a deal, and Boeing filed an unfair-labor-practices charge against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

As it announced layoffs, Boeing also gave a preliminary report on its third-quarter financial results — and the news is not good for the company.

Boeing said it burned through $1.3 billion in cash during the quarter and lost $9.97 per share. Industry analysts had been expecting the company to lose $1.61 per share in the quarter, according to a FactSet survey, but analysts were likely unaware of some large write-downs that Boeing announced Friday — a $2.6 billion charge related to delays of the 777X, $400 million for the 767, and $2 billion for defense and space programs including new Air Force One jets, a space capsule for NASA and a military refueling tanker.

The company based in Arlington, Virginia, said it had $10.5 billion in cash and marketable securities on Sept. 30. Boeing is schedule to release full third-quarter numbers on Oct. 23.

The strike has a direct bearing on cash burn because Boeing gets half or more of the price of planes when it delivers them to airline customers. The strike has shut down production of the 737 Max, Boeing's best-selling plane, and 777x and 767s. The company is still making 787s at a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

“Our business is in a difficult position, and it is hard to overstate the challenges we face together,” Ortberg told staff. He said the situation “requires tough decisions and we will have to make structural changes to ensure we can stay competitive and deliver for our customers over the long term.”

Ortberg took over at Boeing in August, becoming the troubled company’s third CEO in less than five years. He is a longtime aerospace-industry executive but an outsider to Boeing.

The Federal Aviation Administration increased scrutiny of the company after a panel blew out of a Max during an Alaska Airlines flight in January. Boeing has agreed to plead guilty and pay a fine for conspiracy to commit fraud tied to the Max, but relatives of the 346 people who died in two Max crashes want tougher punishment.

This photo provided by NASA shows Boeing's Starliner spacecraft docked to the International Space Station on July 3, 2024. The capsule launched astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the I.S.S. but now they'll return to Earth on a Space Crew Dragon capsule.

And Boeing got attention for all the wrong reasons when NASA decided that a Boeing spacecraft wasn’t safe enough to carry two astronauts home from the International Space Station.

Changing OpenAI’s nonprofit structure could have big consequences

Sun, 13 Oct 2024 14:51:17 GMT

The artificial intelligence maker OpenAI may face a costly and inconvenient reckoning with its nonprofit origins even as its valuation recently exploded to $157 billion.

Nonprofit tax experts have been closely watching OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, since last November when its board ousted and rehired CEO Sam Altman. Now, some believe the company may have reached — or exceeded — the limits of its corporate structure, under which it is organized as a nonprofit whose mission is to develop artificial intelligence to benefit “all of humanity” but with for-profit subsidiaries under its control.

Jill Horwitz, a professor in law and medicine at UCLA School of Law who has studied OpenAI, said that when two sides of a joint venture between a nonprofit and a for-profit come into conflict, the charitable purpose must always win out.

“It’s the job of the board first, and then the regulators and the court, to ensure that the promise that was made to the public to pursue the charitable interest is kept,” she said.

Altman recently confirmed that OpenAI is considering a corporate restructure but did not offer any specifics. A source told The Associated Press, however, that the company is looking at the possibility of turning OpenAI into a public benefit corporation. No final decision has been made by the board and the timing of the shift hasn’t been determined, the source said.

In the event the nonprofit loses control of its subsidiaries, some experts think OpenAI may have to pay for the interests and assets that had belonged to the nonprofit. So far, most observers agree OpenAI has carefully orchestrated its relationships between its nonprofit and its various other corporate entities to try to avoid that.

However, they also see OpenAI as ripe for scrutiny from regulators, including the Internal Revenue Service and state attorneys general in Delaware, where its incorporated, and in California, where it operates.

Bret Taylor, chair of the OpenAI nonprofit’s board, said in a statement that the board was focused on fulfilling its fiduciary obligation.

“Any potential restructuring would ensure the nonprofit continues to exist and thrive, and receives full value for its current stake in the OpenAI for-profit with an enhanced ability to pursue its mission,” he said.

Here are the main questions nonprofit experts have:

How could OpenAI convert from nonprofit to for-profit?

Tax-exempt nonprofits sometimes decide to change their status. That requires what the IRS calls a conversion.

Tax law requires money or assets donated to a tax-exempt organization to remain within the charitable sector. If the initial organization becomes a for-profit, generally, a conversion is needed where the for-profit pays the fair market value of the assets to another charitable organization.

Even if the nonprofit OpenAI continues to exist in some way, some experts argue it would have to be paid fair market value for any assets that get transferred to its for-profit subsidiaries.

In OpenAI’s case, there are many questions: What assets belong to its nonprofit? What is the value of those assets? Do they include intellectual property, patents, commercial products and licenses? Also, what is the value of giving up control of the for-profit subsidiaries?

If OpenAI were to diminish the control that its nonprofit has over its other business entities, a regulator may require answers to those questions. Any change to OpenAI’s structure will require it to navigate the laws governing tax-exempt organizations.

Andrew Steinberg, counsel at Venable LLP and a member of the American Bar Association’s nonprofit organizations committee, said it would be an “extraordinary” transaction to change the structure of corporate subsidiaries of a tax-exempt nonprofit.

“It would be a complex, involved process with numerous different legal and regulatory considerations to work through,” he said. “But it’s not impossible.”

Is OpenAI carrying out its charitable mission?

To be granted tax-exempt status, OpenAI had to apply to the IRS and explain its charitable purpose. OpenAI provided The Associated Press a copy of that September 2016 application, which shows how significantly the organization’s plans for its technology and structure have changed.

OpenAI spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said in an email that the organization’s missions and goals remained constant, though the way it’s carried out its mission has evolved alongside advances in technology.

When OpenAI incorporated as a nonprofit in Delaware, it wrote that its purpose was, “to provide funding for research, development and distribution of technology related to artificial intelligence.” In tax filings, it’s also described its mission as building, “general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.”

Steinberg said there is no problem with the organization’s plans changing as long as it reported that information on its annual tax returns, which it has.

But some observers, including Elon Musk, who was a board member and early supporter of OpenAI and has sued the organization, are skeptical that it has been faithful to its mission.

The “godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton, who was co-awarded the Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday, has also expressed concern about OpenAI’s evolution, openly boasting that one of his former students, Ilya Sutskever, who went on to co-found the organization, helped oust Altman as CEO before bringing him back.

“OpenAI was set up with a big emphasis on safety. Its primary objective was to develop artificial general intelligence and ensure that it was safe,” Hinton said, adding that “over time, it turned out that Sam Altman was much less concerned with safety than with profits. And I think that’s unfortunate.”

Sutskever, who led a team focused on AI safety at OpenAI, left the organization in May and has started his own AI company. OpenAI for its part says it is proud of its safety record.

Will OpenAI board members avoid conflicts of interest?

Ultimately, this question returns to the board of OpenAI’s nonprofit, and the extent to which it is acting to further the organization’s charitable mission.

Steinberg said that any regulators looking at a nonprofit board’s decision will be most interested in the process through which it arrived at that decision, not necessarily whether it reached the best decision.

He said regulators, “will often defer to the business judgment of members of the board as long as the transactions don’t involve conflict of interests for any of the board members. They don’t stand to gain financially from the transaction.”

Whether any board members were to benefit financially from any change in OpenAI’s structure could also be of interest to nonprofit regulators.

In response to questions about if Altman might be given equity in the for-profit subsidiary in any potential restructuring, OpenAI board chair Taylor said in a statement, “The board has had discussions about whether it would be beneficial to the company and our mission to have Sam be compensated with equity, but no specific figures have been discussed nor have any decisions been made

The Doctrine of ‘Kamalism’

Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:05:21 GMT

Rep. Jim Banks: Harris won’t tell us her core commitments, but they are clear from her record.

Kamala Harris became a presidential nominee without winning a single vote. Because she was handpicked by the Democrat Party establishment, not its voters, we now know her core beliefs are the Democrat Party’s core beliefs: Kamalism.

Just two months away from the general election, Kamala Harris won’t define Kamalism, but her long record of radicalism already does.

Kamalism is an attempt to destroy America by obliterating the Constitution, tearing down the border, and tossing out basic American principles like legal equality.

Kamalism is the reason FEMA has spent over $1 billion on illegal migrants in two years, and it’s why DHS Secretary Mayorkas is now telling Americans that FEMA“does not have enough funds to make it through the [hurricane] season.”

It’s why roughly 15 million illegal aliens have crossed our border, and why the administration hopes to send left-wing groups nearly $10 billion a year to facilitate the border crisis.

Kamalism has destroyed American innovation and set American tax dollars on fire. It’s worth examining the reasoning behind it and how it operates in detail.

In 2020 while running alongside Joe Biden, the Harris campaign released a video titled, “There’s a big difference between equality and equity.” According to the narrator, Kamala Harris, “The problem with that [equality], not everyone is starting out at the same place." Equity is superior because it ensures everyone winds up, “at the same place.” Equal outcomes, the false ideal promoted by Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin, is the goal of Kamalism.

In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration set aside $42.5 billion for a program to increase high-speed internet access in rural areas. To receive these grants, applicants must meet guidelines issued per, E.O. 13985, which was issued in January 2021 to advance “equity” across the entire government. Grant applicants must agree to climate change mandates, pledge to hire union workers and check several other Kamalist requirements. After three years, not a single home or business has gained access to high-speed broadband. That is Kamalism in action.

Likewise, the Biden-Harris administration aims to finish building half a million electric vehicle charging stations by 2030. But program applicants can’t start building until after they’ve submitted lengthy reports about equity and “underserved community involvement.” After almost three years of work, the administration has built a grand total of seven stations. One Department of Transportation staffer said Kamalism is “screwing everything up,” and “it’s all a mess.”

Biden and Harris earmarked $6 billion this year for climate funding and conditioned it on an array of inclusivity requirements. Climate grant applicants must submit a “Community Benefits Plan” explaining how they will advance diversity, equity, and accessibility and implement the Justice 40 initiative, which requires 40% of federal investment to aid disadvantaged communities. Yes, even efforts to stop climate change must prove they are aligned with Kamalism.

Kamalism is the idea that the government should be at war with regular Americans. According to Kamalism, they don’t deserve to be helped. They must pledge fealty and be reshaped, or destroyed.

One of our two major party nominees is in an undeclared war with everyday Americans and the American way of life. Every four years, commentators describe the current election as “the most important of your lifetime.” This one really is.

freedom-report2

Why Red State Gold Group Was Named the #1 Rated Gold Company by Freedom Report

Why Red State Gold Group Was Named the #1 Rated Gold Company by Freedom Report

Red State’s mission is simple and bold:

Robert Kiyosaki Predicts Silver Will Outperform Bitcoin in the Coming Months: A New Approach to Building Wealth

This is a subtitle for your new post

A Call to Action: Move Beyond Fiat Currency

Silver Takes the Spotlight

Bitcoin: Still a Key Part of the Strategy

A Historical Comparison: Silver vs. Bitcoin vs. Gold

Kiyosaki’s Ultimate Financial Advice: Protect Your Wealth with Real Assets

US Stock Market Dips Days Before Trump's New Tariffs Take Effect

US Stock Market Dips Days Before Trump's New Tariffs Take Effect

China, Japan, and South Korea Set to Join Forces Against U.S. Tariffs, Chinese State Media Reports

Countries Unite to Combat the Trump Tariffs

Strengthening Economic Ties and Regional Cooperation

Navigating Tensions and Past Disputes

A New Era of Regional Cooperation

Nvidia’s stock can hit $190 as ‘generational opportunity’ unfolds, says BofA

In a bullish forecast that has captured the attention of investors ﻿

Trump tariffs would hit these stock-market sectors the hardest

Trump Tariffs Would Hit These Stock-Market Sectors the Hardest ﻿

SEC’s Grewal Moves to Wall Street After Turning Tough as Its Overseer

The regulator’s former enforcement director becomes a partner at Milbank after three years pushing fines higher at the SEC

The Regulator’s Former Enforcement Director Becomes a Partner at Milbank After Three Years Pushing Fines Higher at the SEC

A Career at the SEC

Transition to Milbank

Implications for the Legal Landscape

Looking Ahead

China’s Latest Round of Property Stimulus Fails to Inspire Markets

Markets largely shrugged off the new measures, which were milder than expected

Dow books fresh record high as U.S. stocks extend weekly winning streak

All three major U.S. stock indexes closed higher Friday, each clinching a sixth straight week of gains. ﻿

Gold Price Forecast: Hits Record High of $2,721, Eyes on Higher Targets

Surging to $2,721, gold shows strong bullish momentum with key targets at $2,754 and $2,815, supported by a breakout from the bull flag pattern. ﻿

Shock Poll: Trump Is Close in New Mexico

KA Consulting’s outlier result suggests Trump is within striking distance in the Land of Enchantment. ﻿

Trump Opposes Regime Change In Iran

State of the Union: Trump indicated that he would oppose Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Scholz Announces Readiness to Negotiate with Putin

State of the Union: Germany’s FM has recently indicated that Putin will not take Scholz’s phone calls.

The Forgotten War that Made America

The overlooked Creek War set the tone for America to come.

Court Applies Environmental Law to Biden-Harris Border Disaster

Walz Questioned Over China Ties and Lies

Grand Strategy Must Begin with Homeland Defense

Congress MIA on Possible U.S. War with Iran

The Vibes Have Run Out For Kamala Harris

America’s Greatest Tradition

Why Is Harris Obsessed With Iran?

Middle-class wages aren’t keeping up. Some economists say policy is suppressing pay growth

China’s economy is in bad shape. Can its ‘whatever-it-takes’ stimulus effort turn things around?

This avoidable spending habit is creating a retirement ‘crisis,’ financial expert warns

Court Applies Environmental Law to Biden-Harris Border Disaster

Berkshire slashes Bank of America stake to under 10%

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has reduced its stake in Bank of America to below 10% amid a selling spree that started in mid-July.

Boeing will lay off 10% of employees as a strike shuts down airplane production

Changing OpenAI’s nonprofit structure could have big consequences

The Doctrine of ‘Kamalism’

In a bullish forecast that has captured the attention of investors

Trump Tariffs Would Hit These Stock-Market Sectors the Hardest

All three major U.S. stock indexes closed higher Friday, each clinching a sixth straight week of gains.

Surging to $2,721, gold shows strong bullish momentum with key targets at $2,754 and $2,815, supported by a breakout from the bull flag pattern.

KA Consulting’s outlier result suggests Trump is within striking distance in the Land of Enchantment.