China's Tech Triple Play Threatens US National Security

Authored by Craig Singleton via RealClearWire,

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping has defiantly declared that technological innovation is the “main battlefield” in China’s quest for global preeminence. But, Beijing’s bold bid to transform itself into a global science superpower is not merely an economic imperative—it is a means to strengthen China’s military might and cyber capabilities, with grave implications for the United States.

At the center of Xi’s vision are what he calls China’s “new productive forces”—breakthroughs in advanced batteries, biotech, LiDAR, drones, and other emerging technologies that promise to redefine the next industrial revolution. By dominating these sectors, Beijing aims to ensure Chinese technology is deeply embedded within critical American supply chains—everything from power grids and ports to communications networks —thereby converting China’s commercial success into a powerful geopolitical tool of leverage.

Here at home, Beijing’s strategy is unfolding in three interlocking phases—penetrating, prepositioning, and profiting—which together form an insidious framework that both erodes America’s technological edge and undermines homeland security.

Recently exposed Chinese state-sponsored hacking campaigns—Salt, Volt, and Flax Typhoon—exemplify Beijing’s systematic approach to penetrating U.S. networks and critical infrastructure. The Salt campaign exploited vulnerabilities in telecommunications systems, allowing attackers to intercept voice and text communications and thereby compromise both civilian privacy and government operations. The Volt operation targeted industrial control systems, breaching energy and manufacturing networks to gain remote control over essential infrastructure. Meanwhile, Flax Typhoon focused on defense and government networks, exfiltrating sensitive data and installing persistent backdoors to facilitate future sabotage.

Collectively, these campaigns reveal how Chinese hackers methodically exploit software and hardware weaknesses to harvest critical intelligence and maintain enduring access to sensitive U.S networks, often with next-to-no consequences. Yet infiltration is not an end in itself. Once inside, Beijing systematically prepositions latent capabilities throughout our physical and digital supply chains, setting the stage for future coercion.

Today, Chinese-made LiDAR devices underpin smart city systems, autonomous vehicles, and certain aerial reconnaissance platforms. Similarly, Chinese-produced surveillance cameras and drones are integrated throughout our transportation network, including at major U.S. airports. Even critical infrastructure components like cranes in U.S. ports and batteries connected to our grids have morphed into strategic choke points, according to Congressional investigations.

In a conflict—or even a severe diplomatic crisis—these systemic dependencies could confer a decisive advantage to China. By withholding critical parts or inflating prices at a pivotal moment, Beijing can exploit these supply chain choke points to hamper U.S. readiness.

Prepositioned exploits could degrade or disable U.S. command-and-control systems, sabotage energy grids, or paralyze transportation networks—potentially stalling America’s response before a single shot is fired. Even if such disruptions remain hypothetical, the mere suspicion of sabotage can erode policymaker confidence and delay military mobilization efforts, effectively handing Beijing a silent veto over our crisis decision-making.

The final phase of Beijing’s strategy is profiting from these dependencies, turning commercial dominance into a revenue stream that reinforces its military-civil fusion. Chinese high-tech exports, ranging from advanced sensors and biotech innovations to drones and surveillance cameras, generate billions in revenue every year for Beijing. These profits are not reinvested merely for commercial growth; they are often funneled directly into programs bolstering People’s Liberation Army’s R&D efforts.

The stakes could hardly be higher. The House Homeland Security Committee, along with other congressional panels, has convened hearings spotlighting how Chinese hackers sit in vital infrastructure systems and how Beijing’s infiltration extends into our supply chains. The bipartisan consensus emerging from these discussions is clear: we must move swiftly from passive defense of American networks to proactive deterrence.

Policymakers can begin by tightening outbound investment screening and export controls. That means scrutinizing U.S. capital and technology flows into Chinese firms linked to China’s military-industrial base, ensuring that American money and know-how no longer subsidize Beijing’s military modernization. Simultaneously, federal agencies should adopt “clean network” standards for software, hardware, and data, effectively establishing cyber quarantines for critical infrastructure. This would bar high-risk Chinese devices from power grids, ports, and telecommunications systems—treating them as inherently untrusted until proven otherwise.

Equally important is imposing meaningful consequences on Beijing’s cyber intrusions. Diplomatic protests and token indictments of mid-level hackers have failed to alter China’s calculus. Instead, Washington should consider stronger penalties—including financial blacklisting of major Chinese firms or banks—to send an unmistakable message that continued infiltration carries real costs.

Finally, we must commit to robust innovation at home. America can’t meet the Chinese challenge simply by playing defense. Expanding federal R&D, incentivizing private-sector breakthroughs, and aligning workforce development with future technology needs will ensure that the United States remains a leader in the very fields—biotech, AI, quantum computing, energy storage—where China seeks supremacy.

Xi’s “main battlefield” is already upon us, and America can no longer afford complacency. China’s triple threat—penetrating, prepositioning, and profiting—targets the core of our national resilience. If we fail to respond decisively, we risk losing our technological edge and compromising our security. By fortifying our networks, enforcing meaningful consequences on malicious actors, and investing in American innovation, we can ensure Xi’s ambitions do not come at the expense of our prosperity and safety.

 

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 22:10

"Reimagine New Jersey": Newark Mayor Ras Baraka Shown in Video Supporting Farrakhan’s Racist, Violent Views

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Across the country, Democratic leaders are resorting to what I have called “rage rhetoric” as supporters are turning to actual violence, including arson and other crimes directed against Tesla. 

In Hawaii, Gov. Josh Green (D) even reacted to Novak Djokovic playing tennis with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by hoping that he is hit in the head. However, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, currently one of the top Democratic candidates for New Jersey governor, appears to have gotten an early lead in this race to the bottom. In a video that has now attracted interest in his run for governor, Baraka gives a full-throated endorsement of the violent and racist rhetoric of Nation of Islam leader (and raging anti-Semite) Louis Farrakhan.

In a newly released video from 2004, Baraka is shown applauding and embracing Farrakhan as he calls for violence and denounces White people as “demons.” 

Those “demons” compose roughly 52% of the state that Baraka wants to lead.

The video from a Newark church shows Baraka introducing Farrakhan as “the leader of every Black person.”

“I don’t think that there’s any man today, present today, that has the kind of moral authority or spiritual strength. Not president, not community leader, not political international activist, nowhere that has the moral authority, the historical and political framework, that the Minister Farrakhan has, that. Who can stand where he stands and truly say that he is the leader of black people anywhere and everywhere.”

The New York Post uncovered the video showing Baraka giving Farrakhan a standing ovation as he denounces non-violence:  “We didn’t believe in no non-violence. The cracker hit you on your jaw, you break his neck. That’s the way we think.”

He also gives him a standing ovation in denouncing all white people as the “enemy.”

“Now the enemy comes in. You, the Crips, and the Bloods, they’ll send people in to give you rumors about your brother over there. These demons will even kill a policeman and then blame it on you. You dealing with a devil, man. You’re not dealing with righteous people. This cracker is the real devil. And you better wake up and realize that.”

Once again, this is the mayor of a major city and a leading Democratic candidate for governor of New Jersey.

Baraka later arranged for Farrakhan to give a speech to over 1,000 high school students at Central High School in Newark, where he was principal.

Many on the far left shrug off such connections to racist or violent groups. It is reminiscent of former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, who once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany. Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer.

With violence on the left increasing around the country, Democratic leaders continue to try to appease the most radical elements in their party. That was evident last week when Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) denounced the investigation into the attacks on Tesla dealerships and owners as “political weaponization.”

This is a long history of downplaying or shrugging off such violence, including some who seem to fuel the violence.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., told George Floyd protesters in Minnesota to “get more confrontational” if a jury found former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin not guilty. And when Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was threatened in 2018 because she had not opposed Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., mocked the concern over her safety with “boo hoo hoo.”

For her part, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declined to condemn left-wing mobs destroying statues and historic displays in her home city of San Francisco. Pelosi shrugged and said, “People will do what they do.”

In the case of Baraka, he appears to have a long history of associating with such violent and racist speech. In 2017, he organized another speech for Farrakhan titled “Separation or Death,” reportedly calling for a separate black state.

With the release of the videos, Baraka is standing firm in support of his association with Farrakhan, bizarrely defending his record of supporting “peace, equality, and equity.” He is blaming the “political establishment” for “false” claims based on these videos.

In his campaign for governor, Baraka is calling for voters to “reimagine New Jersey” and promising to “deconstruct the state budget and reassemble with equity as our north star; judging every decision as either a step towards equity or a step towards inequity.”

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 21:00

Paper Promises, Golden Truths

Authored by Adam Sharp via DailyReckoning.com,

Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero.

— Voltaire, 18th century

In films and TV shows set in the future, money is usually a digital government currency.

Credits, cubits, and chits are a few names I recall. This is a globalist CBDC-based vision of the future. Bleak.

But in one of my favorite sci-fi movies, Looper, precious metals reign supreme as money. In that film, the inevitable breakdown in fiat currency has already occurred and hard money has made a comeback.

This latter scenario is far more likely. Time and time again, central banks and governments have proven they cannot be trusted with the power to create unlimited money. It doesn’t matter whether it’s paper or digital money, central bankers will print too much of it given the chance.

Without exception, every fiat currency in history has trended towards zero. Government digital money will be no different.

Voltaire wasn’t exaggerating when he said, “paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero”. In fact, he had just experienced it first-hand following France’s disastrous fiat experiments of the 1700s.

It’s a question of when, not if. And time is running short.

Our Unusual Fiat Era is Ending

Since 1971, the world has been under a highly unusual 100% fiat monetary system. Not a single country operates on hard money today.

Never before in history was every country simultaneously using fiat. We are living through an incredibly rare, and increasingly dangerous, monetary experiment.

For most of history, developed countries were on a gold and/or silver standard. Coinage was default for thousands of years.

Switching to paper money was always a desperation move. It often happened during or after a major war, when governments were running low on cash. So they switch to fiat to pay the bills, and debase everyone’s savings in the process.

The world has only been on a fiat standard since 1971. Which, not coincidentally, was when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard following huge deficits from the Vietnam War.

It has happened hundreds of times. After it all goes horribly wrong, gold and silver make their inevitable return.

The Dollar Had a Good Run

This fiat period has lasted longer than most. The dollar has been an unusually robust paper currency, and due some clever engineering, it essentially became an oil-backed currency (for many decades, oil producers would only accept dollars for oil).

The dollar will remain an important player for some time to come. But the era of the petrodollar system, where the dollar was the only way to buy oil, is over.

We are entering a new multi-polar era where countries use their own currencies to buy oil and other goods. And the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower.

Central banks around the world are gobbling up gold and diversifying away from the dollar as debt spirals out of control.

We’re approaching the end game now. This is why we’ve been pounding the table on gold and silver so much lately. And it’s why we will continue to going forward.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 18:40

Trump Administration Using Spy Satellites To Monitor Southern Border

The Trump administration ordered two Pentagon intelligence agencies—the NGA and NRO—to use spy satellites to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border in a broader effort to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking., according to Reuters.

The involvement of spy agencies and troop deployments highlights the growing militarization of the southern border, where Trump declared a national emergency.

Though the extent of satellite surveillance over U.S. territory remains unclear, the NGA confirmed forming a task force for the border mission, while the NRO said it was working with the Pentagon and intelligence community to secure the border.

The Reuters report says that their role stems from Trump’s executive orders targeting illegal crossings, trafficking, and the deportation of up to 14 million undocumented immigrants.

Trump, who made immigration central to his 2016 campaign, is now expanding the use of military tools—originally designed for foreign conflict—to the U.S.-Mexico border.

While AI and drones have long been used for border surveillance, the new initiative taps battlefield-grade capabilities. AI could scan satellite imagery for people or objects of interest, sources said, much like it does overseas.

Though the full scope remains unclear, experts warned the administration must address legal limits on domestic surveillance. U.S. law bars spy agencies from targeting citizens, but immigration officials can operate within 100 miles of the border.

“If they follow the law, these agencies should only collect on the other side of the border in foreign territory,” said national security lawyer Paul Rosenzweig. “But how they implement that, and if they do, are legitimate oversight questions.”

An intelligence official insisted all surveillance is “legal and authorized” and respects Americans’ privacy. The NGA and NRO declined to detail their border operations, citing security concerns. The CIA, sources said, has no role in domestic enforcement: “Once foreign criminals are inside the United States, they are not within the purview of the CIA.”

Trump has elevated border security to a top national intelligence priority, channeling more resources to it. A recent U.S. intelligence report placed transnational crime above threats from Iran or North Korea.

Meanwhile, the National Security Council is reportedly receiving daily briefings on immigration arrests, including minors.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 18:05

University Of Michigan Guts DEI Programs

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

The University of Michigan said it will eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts following the Trump administration’s warning that colleges with discriminative policies could lose federal funding.

The changes, announced on Thursday, include shutting down two diversity offices and ending its “DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan.” This follows earlier steps to phase out DEI-related requirements, such as removing mandatory DEI statements in admissions, hiring, promotions, awards, and performance reviews.

The university said individuals who previously worked on DEI initiatives across various schools, colleges, and departments will now “refocus their full effort on their core responsibilities.”

“These decisions have not been made lightly,” University of Michigan President Santa Ono and three top administrators said in a joint statement. “We recognize the changes are significant and will be challenging for many of us, especially those whose lives and careers have been enriched by and dedicated to programs that are now pivoting.

“We are deeply grateful for the meaningful contributions of leaders, faculty, and staff who have advanced our ongoing efforts to create an ever-more inclusive and respectful community.”

Federal Pressure Intensifies

The changes come as the Trump administration ramped up the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VI and Title IX, which prohibit discrimination based on race and sex, respectively, in education settings.

The University of Michigan specifically pointed to a “Dear Colleague” letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s civil rights division. The Feb. 14 letter warned that the 2023 Supreme Court decision that declared the use of racial preferences in college admissions unconstitutional would now extend to all university policies and programs beyond admissions.

“At its core, the test is simple: If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law,” the letter stated.

Moving forward, the university said it plans to increase investments in student-facing programs, including financial aid, mental health support, academic advising and counseling, and a scholarship for students from foster care.

Massive DEI Spending Under Scrutiny

The university has been known for a sprawling and costly DEI bureaucracy. According to an analysis by UMich economics professor Mark Perry, as of January 2024, the university spent $30.7 million each year on salaries for 241 employees who work in DEI offices or have the keywords diversity, equity, or inclusion in their job titles. This figure does not account for additional staff and resources spent to support those DEI employees.

A New York Times investigation published in October 2024 further estimated that UMich spent $250 million on DEI since 2016. The Times noted that despite this enormous investment, race- and gender-based grievances on campus actually increased, with students filing more complaints than ever before.

Following the Times report, UMich published a lengthy response in which Chief Diversity Officer Tabbye Chavous accused the article of being “filled with misinformation, disinformation, and, sadly, sexism.”

Some officials agreed that the university’s massive DEI spending failed to directly benefit students. Jordan Acker, one of the six Democrats on UMich’s eight-member board of regents, said on Thursday that the resources have not been effectively used to achieve its goals.

“Over the past several years, the university has spent 250 million on diversity efforts, but yet the population of minority students at UM has grown little, and much of the resources we’ve devoted to these efforts have gone into administrative overhead, not outreach to students,” he said in a statement on social media platform X.

“At Michigan, the focus of our diversity efforts needs to be meaningful change, not bureaucracy.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 17:30

Trump Inks $100 Million Deal With Skadden Law Firm

Authored by Samantha Flom via The Epoch Times,

A prominent Wall Street law firm has struck a deal with the White House to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP will dedicate the services to causes supported by both the firm and the Trump administration, including assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in the U.S. justice system, and combating anti-Semitism.

The firm also committed to funding at least five law graduates under a fellowship dedicated to supporting the causes each year and employing merit-based hiring practices, vowing not to deny representation to members of politically disenfranchised groups.

This deal comes as President Donald Trump has, in recent weeks, issued executive orders targeting multiple major legal firms, directing government agencies to revoke their security clearances and terminate contracts. While Trump has not issued one against Skadden, the deal seems to be a way to prevent that from happening.

“This was essentially a settlement,” President Donald Trump said in announcing the deal at a White House event.

“We appreciate Skadden’s coming to the table. As you know, other law firms have likewise settled the case. And … what’s gone on is a shame.”

A White House statement explained that Skadden had approached Trump about its “strong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.”

Jeremy London, the firm’s executive partner, said the two parties worked “constructively” to reach an agreement.

“The firm looks forward to continuing our productive relationship with President Trump and his administration. We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm,” London said.

News of the agreement came just hours after two other law firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, sued the president for ordering the retraction of their security clearances and the termination of their government contracts.

In WilmerHale’s case, Trump cited the firm’s employment of former special counsel Robert Mueller and his aides as one of the top reasons for the move.

Mueller “wielded the power of the Federal Government to lead one of the most partisan investigations in American history,” Trump wrote in the executive order, referring to Mueller’s investigation of claims Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Those claims proved to be unfounded.

Jenner, on the other hand, hired Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s top prosecutor.

In separate legal actions filed in the District of Columbia, the two firms accused the administration of punishing its political opposition and asked the court to find Trump’s orders unconstitutional.

Paul Weiss, another Wall Street law firm, brokered a deal with the White House last week to provide $40 million in free legal services for mutually supported causes. In return, the administration revoked an order similar to those targeting Jenner and WilmerHale.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 16:20

Maryland Democrats Pass "Sleep Tax" - Is A Thinking Tax Next?

Maryland lawmakers are scrambling to address a staggering $3.3 billion budget shortfall.

To close the gap, far-left Governor Wes Moore and activist Democrats have proposed a wave of tax hikes that would hit Marylanders' wallets the hardest amid a deepening affordability crisis. 

QUESTION:

Maryland lawmakers spent too much money. The state has a $3.5 BILLION deficit.

To close the gap, Annapolis is looking to raise your taxes/fees. Here's a list of the proposed increases. Which affect you most? Or... have you already ordered the U-Haul truck?

Tax…

— Chris Papst (@chrispapst) March 29, 2025

With power bills already skyrocketing to record highs for many folks due to backfiring and disastrous green energy policies, these same progressive lawmakers are creating even more nightmares for taxpayers—this time by proposing a tax that effectively targets sleep.

A small but vocal group of conservative Republicans in the Maryland House of Delegates were stunned on Friday when far-left Democrats pushed through HB 858—a bill that establishes a mattress stewardship program under the guise of promoting safe disposal and recycling. This is another tax on Marylanders as the state sinks into financial turmoil and elevated credit downgrade risks. The new 6% tax on mattresses is on top of the existing 6% sales tax. 

Del. Mark N. Fisher (R-Calvert), one of the leaders of the Maryland House Freedom Caucus, blasted the "Sleep Tax" and asked if there would be a "snoring surcharge."

Democrats just passed the ‘Sleep Tax’. Marylanders already pay a 6% sales tax when you buy a mattress. Now, @mddems want you to pay a surcharge. Is that a ‘snoring surcharge’? pic.twitter.com/Pt0atYzupZ

— Mark Fisher (@fisher4maryland) March 28, 2025

Torrey Snow of WBAL Radio said this about the ridiculous tax passed on sleep...

Oh, you think I'm joking! Maryland Democrats literally passed a bill to tax your good sleep! House Bill 858. Look it up! #maryland #democrats #mattresstax #wesmoore pic.twitter.com/HeI3yTHQht

— Torrey Snow WBAL (@TorreySnowWbal) March 28, 2025

Meanwhile...

Virginia, Delaware, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania Mattress stores right now….. #Maryland #MooreTaxes #MooreFees https://t.co/MiVbY2t4Ex pic.twitter.com/pqOu0PXMU7

— Libertarian Party of Maryland (@LPMaryland) March 28, 2025

Also, Moody's Ratings recently warned that Maryland—a state heavily dependent on the federal government—faces heightened recession risk in the era of DOGE-related cuts. The warning comes amid a twin crisis: a ballooning state deficit and a power bill crisis. 

If far-left Gov. Moore and Democrats are willing to tax Marylanders' sleep, these woke activists could easily push another bill to tax thinking. 

Maryland Dems...

Maryland Dems Lose All Sense Of Reality: Focus On Condoms For Kids, Reparations As Crises Pile Up https://t.co/WnoOnJxnbi

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 5, 2025

It's time for common sense to re-enter Maryland politics after decades of Democrats torpedoing the state to the brink of financial crisis. Perhaps the Maryland House Freedom Caucus will be those heroes needed to rescue the imploding state.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 15:45

Rep. Masssie Pushes For Nationwide Right To Carry Firearms Without Permit

Authored by José Niño via Headline USA,

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill HR 38, a bill that allows licensed concealed firearm holders to carry in other states that allow concealed carry. 

However, for Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, this bill does not go far enough. On X, he said “ I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry.” 

He added, “29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states?” 

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry.

29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states?

Under HR 38… pic.twitter.com/ddS2jECW0q

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 27, 2025

Constitutional carry is the simple concept that any lawful individual can carry a firearm without having to ask the government for permission.

Under HR 38, Massie noted that residents of constitutional carry states can carry firearms in any state that issues permits to its citizens. The recent Bruen Supreme Court decision requires all non-constitutional carry states to issue carry permits.

Massie highlighted how when HR 38 passes, residents of the 29 constitutional carry states will be able to carry in all 50 states without a permit. Though paradoxically, residents of the 21 states without constitutional carry will need permits in their own states, while visitors from constitutional carry states won’t.

In the Kentucky congressman’s view, if Congress can mandate California to allow permit-less carry for out-of-state visitors based on the Second Amendment, it only makes sense to extend this right to California residents as well. 

Massie posed the following question: “Why not pass national constitutional carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to ‘bear arms’ which is enshrined in the Constitution?”

He also called attention to how HR 38 may create a situation where a Kentucky resident could carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians themselves cannot own or carry such equipment. This appears to contradict the framework established by the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller.

In contrast, Massie’s proposed national constitutional carry bill stipulates that if a state allows possession of a particular firearm, it must also allow the carry of said firearm.

He introduced this bill as a substitute amendment to HR 38 in committee but withdrew it to avoid forcing his colleagues to choose between National Reciprocity and National Constitutional Carry. The current consensus is that HR 38 can pass the House, while Constitutional Carry may not have sufficient support.

Pro-gun organizations such as the National Association for Gun Rights are firmly behind Massie’s Constitutional Carry bill. NAGR President Dudley Brown tweeted, “Massie’s bill is INFINITELY better than *smirk* John Cornyn’s.”

Massie's bill is INFINITELY better than *smirk* John Cornyn's. https://t.co/vk6qXzKUkY

— Dudley Brown (@dudleywbrown) March 27, 2025

Massie’s bill is INFINITELY better than *smirk* John Cornyn’s.

Headline USA reached out to Brown, who said the following about Massie’s bill: 

“Massie’s Real Constitutional Carry law skips all the big-brother-may-I requirements and assumes citizens are law-abiding.  National reciprocity is a half measure compromise, as evidenced by the Senate sponsor, Sen John Cornyn.”

HR 38 was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-NC, and currently has 178 co-sponsors.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 12:50

These Are The Best States For House Flipping

A new study ranks the best states for house flipping, using data on sale prices, remodeling costs, sales volume, and time on market. By standardizing these metrics into a single House Flipping Score, the study identifies where flipping is most profitable—higher scores mean better conditions for flippers.

Vermont tops the list of best states for house flipping with a score of 99, thanks to fast sales (32 days on market) and high transaction volume. Maine follows with a score of 95, offering the lowest remodeling costs ($27,486) among top states and similarly quick sales, the study from Badeloft shows.

New Hampshire ranks third (score: 93), combining low renovation costs with high average sale prices ($462,492). Delaware takes fourth (score: 86) with moderate remodeling expenses and solid sales volume.

Rhode Island (score: 85) has the second-fastest market (under 28 days) and low renovation expenses. Hawaii places sixth (score: 83), driven by the highest sale prices nationwide ($829,941).

Connecticut (score: 79) has the shortest time on market—just 27 days—and solid resale value. Virginia (score: 76) offers decent profits with moderate remodeling costs. North Carolina (score: 74) boasts the most active housing market among top states.

Massachusetts rounds out the top ten (score: 71) with high property values ($605,614) and a market time of 36 days.

Virginia is ranked eighth for house flipping potential, achieving a score of 76. Home improvement projects here generally require an investment of $39,215, with investors able to sell properties for an average of $382,930.

Finally, North Carolina is positioned ninth on the list of best states for house flipping, achieving a score of 74. The state features the most active housing market among the top-ranking states, with 6,649 houses sold per 100,000 residents.

A Badeloft study spokesperson said: “House flipping proves to be a profitable endeavor in many states, particularly those where the cost of remodeling is relatively low, and the potential for high sale prices is strong. It’s important to consider that prioritizing premium quality renovations is essential to maximizing the property’s value and securing a profitable return."

"Carefully selected and stylish furnishings that complement these renovations can further enhance the home’s appeal, making it even more marketable and increasing its overall value”.

The full study data can be found here. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 12:15

Trump Puts The System On Trial

Authored by Waters and Ellwanger via RealClearWorld,

President Trump’s supporters have denounced the federal judges seeking to stall or stop this administration’s government overhaul. But there is at least one person who, despite a show of outrage and condemnation, is neither surprised nor intimidated: Trump himself.

The politically appointed judges have ordered, among other actions, that federal agencies reinstate thousands of fired probationary employees; that billions of taxpayer dollars be paid to questionable USAID projects and contractors; and that foreign-born criminals deported to their native countries be returned and granted due process. Regardless of the legal merits, the American people recognize these orders as obstructions to what Trump said he would do if elected, and what voters elected him to do. Yet the judges’ resistance is expected—they’re bound up in and rewarded by the system Trump seeks to reform.

Two-thirds of Americans believe the “system” is broken, but for years progressive politicians and their mouthpieces posited that the system couldn’t be fixed. Intellectuals on the Left, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, said America’s flaws were “systemic” in nature: systemic racism, systemic sexism, and systemic injustice. They whined and preached but offered no solutions for the millions of Americans of all races and both genders struggling and failing to unlock their potential to succeed.

When Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, he too claimed the system was broken, but not because we are racist or sexist by nature, but because the system itself is old, soft, and corrupt, with leaders grown unresponsive to the people they are supposed to serve. That core belief guided his first term and remains unchanged at the start of his second.    

For decades, politicians failed to respond to real problems because their agendas, even their identities, were phony, crafted by consultants and pollsters who aimed not for the truth, but for whichever lies or provocations were most efficacious in winning the next election. But one need not resort to craven and conspiratorial explanations of this sort, which hint that elected officials deliberately ignore the public will. The truth is simpler. They have to ignore voters, if only because they have no idea how to fix the problems we face.

*  *  *

On Sale! Grab a complete 2-day emergency survival backpack at ZH Store

Click pic... add to cart (one for each car & your go-bag storage)... be more prepared. Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.

In one sense, the elites’ ineptitude is understandable: we have a highly complex society that has undergone a recent, rapid, destabilization brought on by technological advance. But to admit that they simply don’t know how to address any contemporary issue would be to concede that it is only their mere status as “elites” that qualifies them to rule. Thus, to conceal their befuddlement, they explain their inaction by a vague demand that we address the “root causes” of every issue – which further justifies them in doing nothing.

The bad faith inherent to the “root causes” strategy was nowhere more obvious than at the border. For years, establishment voices told us that border security measures would fail without addressing the “root causes” of the problem: central American poverty and climate change. These appeals allowed the political class to avoid doing what they didn’t want to do (securing the border) and to manufacture a duty to do the things they did want to do (diverting American revenue to foreign aid “relief programs” and enacting more restrictive environmental policies). Aside from those interventions, they assured us, there was nothing we could do about the illegal immigration crisis.

But as it often happens, Trump called their bluff. Somehow, he managed to end the flood of illegal crossings within weeks of taking office. And contrary to the best wisdom of the “experts,” it didn’t require a grand congressional bargain like the betrayal that Sen. Lankford (R-OK) offered as a solution. Nor did it require a new climate deal. We didn’t have to make Honduras great again to stop the caravans. No – as it turned out, the answer was staring us in the face. The solution was one that could be intuited by any American voter: just secure the border. Only a class as feckless and clueless as our politicians couldn’t grasp this. But Trump understood it. And Americans see that.

Barring any real action to improve the lot of regular Americans, the lost and divided Democrats cast about for a “message” and a “messenger” to improve their chances in the next election. They believe a magic word or slogan (“nazis,” “oligarchs,” “authoritarians,” and “autocrats” all have been tried and failed), rather than concrete beliefs and plans, will “meet this moment” and win over American voters. But voters know the Democratic Party lacks anything affirmative or real.

Politicians will never make America great again, Trump said at his campaign kick-off in 2015. “They’re controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests. “[And] it’s destroying our country.” Unlike Bush, Obama, and Biden, Trump spoke to what people felt in the Rust Belt and the Bible Belt and the Farm Belt. He looked into the vast interior of the country and understood what many Americans knew all too well: that working hard and playing by the rules no longer guaranteed their children would be better off than they had been. 

Speaking about politicians in 2015, Trump said: “I hear their speeches. They don’t talk jobs. [They] have no competence. [They] don’t know what’s happening.” His message of “America First” was clear and authentic, and it implied real action and solid outcomes: protect jobs, livelihoods, and futures of Americans. The hapless politicians had nothing to counter.

“The Resistance” to the first Trump administration was advanced by the machinations of bureaucrats in the vast regulatory state. But with the president rapidly dismantling that apparatus, a new strategy was needed. For the Resistance 2.0, it seems the establishment will depend on the courts to thwart the democratically-expressed will of the people. But there is a higher court in this land, where American voters serve as judge, jury, and executor.

Earlier this month at the Department of Justice, Trump warned of the “violent, vicious lawyers” who persecute the president and bully the American public to get their way. Expect these lawyers to “play the ref,” Trump said, weaving in a story about former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight, who once threw a chair across the court and screamed like a madman at the referees for a call to be overturned. The referee wasn’t going to change the first call, Trump said of Knight’s rationale for throwing the tantrum. “But he’s going to change for the next play. And sure as hell, he did.” Trump understands that activist lawyers and progressive pundits will put heat on the judiciary, and that, on occasion, they’ll get their way.

For 10 years, Trump has confronted the political class, calling out their incompetence and dishonesty, and the voters continue to reward him. Federal judges, egged on by the politically-motivated legal establishment, may try to frustrate the president in his pursuit of long-held promises to build a better country. But Trump is building his case outside the courts – and he’s betting on a sympathetic hearing with the American people, who will note the overt evidence of bias, corruption, and incompetence, whether it occurs in the media, executive branch, or the judiciary. Judges will rule on procedure and technicalities, but the people will evaluate the legitimacy of our institutions and credibility of our leaders.

In 2028, the jury will render its verdict.

John J. Waters is a lawyer. He served as a deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security from 2020-21. Follow him at @JohnJWaters1 on X. 

Adam Ellwanger is a professor at University of Houston – Downtown, where he teaches rhetoric and writing. Follow him at @1HereticalTruth on X.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 11:40

Scott Jennings To CNN Panel: Democrats Morphed Into Angry Mob Cheering Violence & Chaos

Following sleazy Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett's disheartening remarks about the Texas Governor's wheelchair-bound condition, GOP analyst Scott Jennings offered some words of advice to the far-left-leaning panel during Tuesday's edition of CNN NewsNight: 

I don't know how Democrats appointed Jasmine Crockett as the unquestioned leader of your party, but thank God.

And I think what she should do is go on TV twice as much - maybe three times as much - because everytime she appears - makes these mistakes - says something radical - it only further divides her party from the other 80% of America who can't stand this - but the problem is - there's an audience for this.

I heard Jimmy Kimmel's audience cheering on Tesla vandalism; I hear that The Daily Show's audience on a tax on Elon Musk; I hear the Human Right's audience cheering on an attack on a man in a wheelchair.

And I realize this is what the left has become: an angry mob of people who are cheering on attacks on a guy in a wheelchair and vandalism against people who bought a Tesla ... it's pathetic.

On X, Jennings wrote that Crockett "will learn no lessons from the "Hot Wheels" episode because the Left's angry mobs eat this stuff up," adding, "Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector." 

Jasmine Crockett will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up. Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector. pic.twitter.com/egtZIbPyDV

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) March 26, 2025

Jennings is entirely correct: The far-left has chosen the path of hate and violence, while the latest polling data from NBC News and CNN shows the party has hit its lowest approval ratings on record: 27% and 29%, respectively.

Has there ever been such a level of coordinated violence against a peaceful company?

I understand not wanting to buy a product, but this is extreme arson and destruction! https://t.co/AIL8WPt0uv

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 20, 2025

Democrats believe communist revolutionary tactics of firebombing Tesla showrooms and cars are socially acceptable in the era of Trump's law and order to win back votes - yet the imploding party is oblivious and tone deaf that the Overton Window shifted last year - and BLM-style color revolutions are no longer socially acceptable.

*  *  *

Are you Colostrum-pilled yet? Make sure you have the highest IgG (Immunoglobulin) % available...

Click pic, add to cart - grab 2 for 5% off and free shipping, 3 for 10% off

Colostrum and its benefits: a review (Science Direct)

Bovine Colostrum and Its Potential for Human Health and Nutrition (NCBI)

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 11:05

Ultra-Processed Life

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to "the good life," it's a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

The digital realm, finance, and junk food have something in common: they're all ultra-processed, synthetic versions of Nature that have been designed to be compellingly addictive, to the detriment of our health and quality of life.

In focusing on the digital realm, money (i.e. finance, "growth," consuming more as the measure of all that is good) and eating more of what tastes good, we now have an Ultra-Processed Life. All three-- the digital realm, money in all its manifestations and junk food--are all consumed: they all taste good, i.e. generate endorphin hits, and so they draw us into their synthetic Ultra-Processed World.

We're so busy consuming that we don't realize they're consuming us: in focusing on producing and consuming more goods and services as the sole measure of "the good life," it's never enough: if we pile up $1 million, we focus on piling up $2 million. If we pile up $2 million, we focus on accumulating $3 million. And so on, in every manifestation of money and consumption.

The digital realm consumes our lives one minute and one hour at a time, for every minute spent focusing on a screen is a minute taken from the real world, which is the only true measure of the quality of our life.

Ultra-processed food is edible, but it isn't nutritious. It tastes good, but it harms us in complex ways we don't fully understand.

This is the core dynamic of the synthetic "products and services" that dominate modern life: the harm they unleash is hidden beneath a constant flow of endorphin hits, distractions, addictive media and unfilled hunger for all that is lacking in our synthetic Ultra-Processed World: a sense of security, a sense of control, a sense of being grounded, and the absence of a hunger to find synthetic comforts in a world stripped of natural comforts.

In effect, we're hungry ghosts in this Ultra-Processed World, unable to satisfy our authentic needs in a synthetic world of artifice and inauthenticity. The more we consume, the hungrier we become for what is unavailable in an Ultra-Processed Life.

We're told there's no upper limit on "growth" of GDP, wealth, abundance, finance or consumption, but this is a form of insanity, for none of this "growth" addresses what's lacking and what's broken in our lives, the derangements generated by consuming (and being consumed by) highly profitable synthetic versions of the real world.

Insanity is often described as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. So our financial system inflates yet another credit-asset bubble and we expect that this bubble won't pop, laying waste to everyone who believed that doing the same thing would magically generate a different result.

But there is another form of insanity that's easily confused with denial: we are blind to the artificial nature of this Ultra-Processed World and blind to its causal mechanisms: there is only one possible output of this synthetic version of Nature, and that output is a complex tangle of derangements that we seek to resolve by dulling the pain of living a deranged life.

We're not in denial; we literally don't see our Ultra-Processed World for what it is: a manufactured mirror world of commoditized derangements and distortions that have consumed us so completely that we've lost the ability to see what's been lost.

Ultra-processed snacks offer the perfect metaphor. We can't stop consuming more, yet the more we consume the greater the damage to our health. The worse we feel, the more we eat to distract ourselves, to get that comforting endorphin hit. It's a feedback loop that ends in the destruction of our health and life.

Once we've been consumed by money, the digital realm and ultra-processed foods, we've lost the taste for the real world. A fresh raw carrot is sweet, but once we're consuming a diet of sugary cold cereals and other equivalents of candy, we no longer taste the natural sweetness of a carrot; it's been lost in the rush of synthetic extremes of salt, sugar and fat that make ultra-processed foods so addictive. To recover the taste of real food, we first have to completely abandon ultra-processed foods-- Go Cold Turkey.

The idea that we can consume junk food and maintain the taste for real food in some sort of balance is delusional, for the reasons stated above: junk food destroys our taste for real food and its artificially generated addictive qualities will overwhelm our plan to "eat healthy" half the time.

Just as there is no "balance" between ultra-processed food and real food, there is no balance between the synthetic Ultra-Processed World and the real world. We choose one or the other, either by default or by design.

Credit--borrowing money created out of thin air--is the financial equivalent of ultra-processed food. The machinery that spews out the addictive glop is complicated: in the "food" factory, real ingredients are processed into addictive snacks. In finance, reverse repos, swaps, derivatives, mortgages, etc. generate a highly addictive financial product: credit.

Just as with ultra-processed food, the more credit we consume, the more it consumes us. I owe, I owe, so off to work I go.

The derangements of synthetic food, digital realms and finance have yet to fully play out. Consuming more of this Ultra-Processed World is not a path to "the good life," it's a path to the destruction and derangement of an Ultra-Processed Life.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.  Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 10:30

"Content Agnostic": EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies In Bizarre Letter To Congress

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive.

In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe.

What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech.

In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.”

That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation).

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.

This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the world’s most notorious anti-free speech figures went ballistic.

Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”

The EU has long been one of the most aggressively anti-free speech bodies in the world. It has actively supported the evisceration of free speech among its 27 member states. The EU is not “agnostic” when it comes to free speech; it has long championed a type of free-speech atheism.

We have faced EU officials engaging in Orwellian doublespeak for years. Nevertheless, Virkkunen’s letter to Jordan stands out for its sheer mendacity.

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 09:20

Russia Says UK & France Behind Latest Attack On Its Energy Infrastructure

There's been another reported attack on the Sudzha pipeline infrastructure in Russia’s Kursk Region on Friday. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova conveyed to journalists a Russian military assessment saying a metering facility was "de facto destroyed" in a Ukrainian HIMARS attack. 

But unlike some of the prior Ukrainian attacks on the area, the Kremlin is directly blaming the West, going to far as to say that orders for the new strike came directly from European capitals.

The Sudzha gas metering station in the Kursk region, via Russian Defense Ministry

We "have reasons to believe that targeting and navigation were facilitated through French satellites and British specialists input [target] coordinates and launched [the missiles]," Zakharova said, as cited in national media.

"The command came from London," she emphasized, describing it as part of a West-backed "terror" campaign meant to degrade and destroy Russia's energy infrastructure. 

The Kremlin has concluded this demonstrates that Kiev is "impossible to negotiate with," she explained. The Ukrainians have done nothing to actually uphold the energy ceasefire put forward by Trump, despite that Zelensky "publicly supported" it, she said, suggesting it was all an empty game.

"Over the past 24 hours, the Kyiv regime continued its attacks on Russian energy infrastructure using various types of drones and HIMARS multiple rocket launchers," the Russian military had also described.

Russia has alleged Ukraine launched rockets on the Sudzha facility, which had already been damaged in an earlier attack this week, along with nearly 20 drones launched at an oil refinery in the southern Saratov region.

Ukraine is meanwhile denying the Russian allegations, instead suggesting it's a false flag orchestrated by Moscow:

On Friday, Ukraine denied claims that its forces fired on the gas metering station Sudzha and accused Russia's military of striking the facility.

"Russia has again attacked the Sudzha gas transmission system in the Kursk region, which they do not control," Andriy Kovalenko, an official who is responsible for countering disinformation, said on social media.

The two sides have traded blame for violating the energy ceasefire on basically a daily basis since it was proclaimed. It seems to have barely held, if at all, despite ongoing pledges from both sides to uphold it.

Large fire at the scene of the metering station attack...

Kiev has launched another assault on the Sudzha gas metering station, signaling that Zelensky has no desire at all to reduce tensions with Russia or pursue Trump’s peace plan. pic.twitter.com/H4fe75lU5u

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 28, 2025

The US has claimed that it is not providing intelligence for long-range attacks inside Russia by Ukraine, but only intelligence which is defensive in nature. However, Europe is still in maximum support mode, as President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer put together a 'coalition of the willing' to defend Ukraine.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 08:45

Car Wars: The EU (Probably) Strikes Back

By Stefan Koopman, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

The Trump administration’s decision to slap a 25% tariff on imported cars and parts is yet another move in America’s ongoing trade battles. Following the global steel and aluminum tariffs, this latest escalation puts pressure on the EU to respond. As we noted in a special report released yesterday, we believe the European Union prefers to make a deal and prevent a full-blown trade war. However, we argue that Brussels’ decision-making procedures are designed in such a way that escalation is ‘technically’ the path of least resistance. Therefore, absent an agreement, or a clear prospect thereof, European leaders will most likely strike back to any tariffs imposed by the US, even if not fully and with some delay.

We also show in this report that the use of the EU’s (so far never used) Anti-Coercion Instrument is an option open to the European Commission, especially if the US tops up this week’s measures with its already infamous reciprocal tariffs on April 2. This approach, however, would take more time, face more internal hurdles in the EU, and could provoke an even more severe counter-response from the US, one that may extend beyond economic statecraft to political or military actions. This complicates an already complex situation. Therefore, at least initially, we expect the EU to bundle its response in rebalancing measures, i.e., rebalancing tariffs. This enables the EU to react as quickly as possible. Additional countermeasures, such as quotas, will only be considered if the US implements tariffs so high that the EU cannot match the economic impact.

In our baseline scenario for the economy, we have long included a 5% tariff hike on all US imports. The current measures announced still fall within this range, so there is no immediate reason to adjust our projections for growth and inflation. However, as Trump’s tariffs continue to accumulate, and as other countries retaliate, the risk of a more significant stagflationary shock has increased. A plausible scenario for such a backdrop would be if Trump follows through on his threat of an additional 25% tariff on other selected goods, such as pharmaceuticals and chips, or, even worse (but less likely), a 25% universal tariff.

Fittingly, the US reported another astonishingly high trade deficit number for February. The deficit in goods amounted to USD 147.9 billion, on top of January’s USD 155 billion deficit. This averages to a whopping USD 1.8 trillion annualized, over 6% of US GDP. The widening deficit reflects efforts by US companies to secure goods and materials in advance of higher tariffs. In fact, much of the widening in the deficit since December 2024 can be traced to imports of gold bars, predominantly from Switzerland and the UK. The (advanced) February data suggests strong imports of industrial supplies – which not only includes gold, but also steel and aluminum – were still a key driver. But even if industrial supplies are excluded, the trade deficit would be at record levels.

US gold imports pic.twitter.com/5RpaN5DaQX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 6, 2025

Obviously, this front-running of tariffs caused quite a scare earlier in March when the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model plummeted to -2.8% annualized for 25Q1. This prompted the modelers to introduce a “gold-adjusted” version. After all, given that substantial portions of these industrial metals are likely being invested in inventories, the direct impact on GDP should be relatively neutral. However, even with gold excluded, net exports remain a considerable drag on GDP. The gold-adjusted estimate currently stands at +0.2% q/q annualized, which is not pretty.

Across the border, Banxico cut the policy rate 50bp to 9.00%, in line with our expectations. Notably, in its statement, Banxico said that “looking ahead it could continue calibrating the monetary policy stance and consider adjusting it in similar magnitudes.” As such, we now expect a 50bp cut at the next meeting in May and have added an additional 25bp cut to our forecasts. This brings us to five more cuts in 2025 to a terminal rate of 7.50%. Interestingly, Banxico notes that the risks to its inflation outlook remain skewed to the upside. However, the risk of persistence in underlying core inflation has been downgraded, now ranking below the risks of peso depreciation and tariff uncertainty. So, tariffs are leading to rate cuts.

It is worth noting that on Wednesday, the Bank of Canada also revealed in its deliberations that it would have maintained its policy rate at 3.00% instead of cutting it to 2.75%, if not for tariff uncertainty and the perceived need to alleviate concerns among consumers and businesses as the trade war impacts the economy. So here too: tariffs -> rate cuts. Of course, an extra cut here or there doesn’t address the bigger problem. Canada’s caretaker PM Mark Carney, who faces a federal election next month and has flipped the polling landscape by pushing back against Trump, has just said: “The old relationship we had with the US –based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation– is over.” That said, Canada hasn’t retaliated on the auto tariffs yet, as the US says if Canada joins up with the EU, both will see far higher tariffs.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/29/2025 - 08:10

US Office Focused On Shipbuilding Aims To Counter China's Maritime Dominance

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Creating an office of U.S. shipbuilding to facilitate America’s return to being a true maritime power is long overdue and is necessary to counter China’s growing maritime dominance.

At the end of World War II, the United States had over 100 shipyards, and its flagged fleet, the largest in the world, carried  57 percent of U.S. trade, while the majority of world trade was carried in U.S.-built ships.

Today, only about 0.2 percent of global commercial tonnage is being carried in ships built in the United States. Collectively, China, South Korea, and Japan build over 90 percent of the world’s large commercial ships. And with China building over 50 percent of the world’s gross shipping tonnage, it is by far and away the world’s largest shipbuilder, with 232 times more shipbuilding capacity than the United States.

While the lack of commercial shipbuilding capacity is not the only reason we have seen the U.S. Navy decline in size and capability, it has created an environment that makes correcting the issues plaguing the Navy very difficult. Indeed, the lack of commercial shipbuilding is arguably the root cause of our Navy’s decline in readiness, its exploding ship costs, and its inability to hold vendors accountable when they deliver underperforming ships overbudget and years behind schedule.

Examples of underperforming, overbudget ships include the Constellation-class frigate, the Littoral combat ship, the Ford-class carriers, and the massive Zumwalt destroyer. It is the failures in these key shipbuilding  programs that has led to the decline of the U.S. Navy’s size and readiness. Moreover, the vendors associated with these failed and or grossly underperforming programs have at worst received a slap on the wrist and are collectively lined up to receive many hundreds of billions more in U.S. Defense contracts over the coming decades.

Shipbuilders have been able to underdeliver with near impunity, in part due to the fact that they are the only game in town, i.e., if you cancel major defense contracts then the government-dependent companies will go out of business and there will be no shipbuilding capacity. For example, there is currently only one shipbuilder that can build and execute the Refueling and Complex Overhaul work on U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. While there are two firms that can build U.S. nuclear submarines, they are suffering from a lack of skilled labor. In the vast majority of cases, the prime contractors who build the Navy’s ships are almost wholly reliant on military contracts to survive. 

All this means that when contracts are put in place, they are not just put in place to deliver the most powerful ships at the best price, they are put in place to ensure that the company executing the contract can keep its people employed from contract to contract. Thus, contracts are strung out for many years. This makes sense, as having enough people trained up in the skills to rapidly deliver a ship or a number of ships, only to have to let them go when the ships are completed, is not a sustainable business model. Obviously, the Pentagon needs to structure contracts in such a way that defense contractors can stay in business.

However, this leads to the previously mentioned situation where is it well-nigh impossible to hold the defense contractors accountable. This brings us back to the value of having a more robust shipbuilding industry in which major shipbuilders that do business with the Pentagon, also have a robust commercial shipbuilding business. This is the way things were prior to World War II, and for a number of years after the war. For example, while Newport News Shipbuilding has long been the leading vendor when it comes to building U.S aircraft carriers, it also used to also build commercial ships.

But just as important, when the United States had a robust commercial shipbuilding industry, the pool of workers with the skills necessary to build both commercial and military vessels was much larger. This larger pool of skilled workers created a much more resilient shipbuilding environment that benefited the U.S. Navy when it came to negotiating contracts and holding shipbuilders/ship designers accountable. 

Currently, China is the world’s largest commercial and military ship shipbuilder. This means China has a whole bunch of shipyards that can build both military and commercial ships. Its massive shipbuilding industry also ensures China has a huge base of workers with the diverse sets of skills and trades necessary to build ships. The U.S. Navy used to be able to count on a large, robust shipbuilding industry that could build both commercial and military ships, but that has not been case since the 1970s.

Today, according to a Congressional Research Service report, three of the 10 commercial oil tankers selected to ship fuel for the Department of Defense (DOD) as part of the newly enacted Tanker Security Program are Chinese-built. As for dry cargo supplies for the DOD, seven of the 12 most recently built ships in the Maritime Security Fleet are Chinese-built. So, the U.S. Navy, along with the U.S. economy, is now highly dependent on ships built in in other countries, including China. This means that not only is the United States no longer a commercial maritime power, but our military is dependent on Chinese-built ships for logistical support. This is not a good state of affairs.

The new office of shipbuilding announced by President Trump earlier this month aims to correct this national security concern, but how?  Well, that is a rather complex question, but it will require streamlining of existing regulations, beefing up our steel industry, and yes, it will require government subsidies to be able to compete with China, South Korea, and Japan who all heavily subsidize their own shipping industries.

But if the United States wants to address a serious security concern, and regain its status as a true maritime superpower, taking such actions are not optional.

*  *  *

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/28/2025 - 23:25

Judge Upholds California Law Restricting 18- to 20-Year-Olds' Access To Guns

A federal judge has upheld a California law that restricts young adults from buying guns, finding the statute fits within the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations.

California penal code Section 27510 bars federal gun dealers from selling or otherwise giving possession of guns to people younger than 21. The law does allow 18- to 20-year-olds to buy certain types of guns if they obtain a hunting license, are serving in the military, or were honorably discharged from the armed forces.

Some young adults and gun rights groups challenged the law, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, the case has been proceeding through the court system for years. U.S. District Judge James Lorenz said in 2020 that the law did not violate the Constitution, then an appeals court panel said it did. The appeals court later remanded the case back to Lorenz for renewed consideration following the U.S. Supreme Court ordering lower courts to figure out if gun regulations were based on the nation’s history of gun restrictions when deciding whether they are constitutional.

Lorenz on March 26 sided with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, concluding that even though 18- to 20-year-olds are part of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, the young adults have faced gun restrictions throughout much of American history.

The law “is consistent with the Founding Era common law that curtailed commercial firearm purchases by individuals aged 18 to 20,” Lorenz wrote in a 23-page decision.

He also said the law is constitutional because the young adults can buy guns that are not handguns or semiautomatic centerfire rifles if they receive a hunting license or are in the U.S. military. Tens of thousands of young adults have obtained guns under the exceptions in recent years, including 5,431 in 2022.

The young adults can also acquire guns as gifts from family members, the ruling noted.

“Defendants’ evidence supports a reasonable inference that Section 27510 is a commercial restriction that does not meaningfully impair 18-to-20-year-olds’ access to firearms and is therefore not covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the judge said.

The summary judgment ruling means the case is over, unless the plaintiffs appeal.

The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said on social media platform X that it is reviewing the opinion.

Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement that the ruling represents a victory in the fight against gun violence.

“This commonsense regulation will continue to protect our young and vulnerable communities from preventable gun violence,“ he said. ”I am proud of the countless hours my team has put in to defend this law and we know the fight is not over. We will continue to lead efforts to defend commonsense gun-safety laws and protect our communities from senseless violence.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/28/2025 - 23:00

Researchers Identify Diets In Mid-Life Linked To Healthy Aging

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A 30-year study finds a primarily plant-based diet, with minimal ultra-processed food and low to moderate amounts of animal-based foods like fish and dairy, could raise our chances of reaching 70 without developing chronic disease, according to a new study from Harvard researchers.

Creative Cat Studio/Shutterstock

Healthy aging, as defined by the researchers, means reaching age 70 free of major chronic diseases, with good cognitive, physical, and mental health.

“Our findings suggest that dietary patterns rich in plant-based foods, with moderate inclusion of healthy animal-based foods, may promote overall healthy aging and help shape future dietary guidelines,” senior study author Marta Guasch-Ferré said in a press release.

Two Diets Linked to Optimal Aging

The study, recently published in Nature Medicine, examined the midlife diets and health outcomes of more than 105,000 middle-aged women and men aged 39 to 69 over 30 years.

The team evaluated how effectively the participants adhered to eight different largely-plant-based diets: the Alternative Health Eating Index (AHEI), the Alternative Mediterranean Diet (aMED), the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet (DASH), the MIND diet, the Healthful Plant-Based Diet, the Planetary Health Diet Index, the Empirically Inflammatory Dietary Pattern, and the Empirical Dietary Index for Hyperinsulinemia.

Of the participants, 10 percent were identified as aging healthfully and followed the eight diets. Those who closely followed the AEHI and PHDI diets were linked with optimal healthy aging patterns.

The AHEI diet was found to be especially beneficial. It was developed to prevent chronic disease and emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats while limiting red meat, refined grains, and sugar.

Participants scoring highest on this diet were found to have an 86 percent greater likelihood of healthy aging by age 70 and a 2.2-fold higher likelihood by age 75 compared to those with the lowest scores. The PHDI diet also emphasizes plant-based foods and reduces animal-based food intake.

Other diets researchers looked at that were linked to healthy aging were the aMED which follows the Mediterranean model and the DASH diet. The aMED diet prioritizes olive oil, nuts, whole grains, and moderate fish intake. DASH is known for lowering blood pressure and focuses on fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy.

“Maintaining a healthy diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unsaturated fats, nuts, and legumes during mid-life is linked to a higher likelihood of healthy aging along with better cognitive, physical, and mental health,” Guasch-Ferré told The Epoch Times.

Conversely, higher consumption of ultra-processed foods, particularly processed meats and sugary beverages, was linked to a decreased chance of aging healthfully.

No ‘One Size Fits All’ Diet

The findings also suggest that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all diet.

“Healthy diets can be adapted to fit individual needs and preferences,” lead author Anne-Julie Tessier, assistant professor at the University of Montreal, stated in the press release.

Shelley Balls, registered dietitian nutritionist for Flawless Bloom in Western Wyoming, told The Epoch Times that ultra-processed foods include many convenience snack foods such as potato chips, candy, cookies, and crackers, as well as sweetened beverages such as soda, sweetened tea, and sugar-laden coffees.

“I’m not saying you should never have these types of foods and beverages, but I would highly recommend limiting their intake in order to promote overall health,” she said.

However, certain ultra-processed foods are healthier than others, she said. Potato chips are high on fats and sodium, making them good once-in-awhile, but sugar sweetened beverage quickly adds up when it comes to sugar and calorie intake.

“Even certain diet drinks, although they might not have the calories, could negatively affect digestive health, which is linked to obesity,” she said.

Healthy animal-based food also should not be avoided.

“Healthy animal-based foods such as Greek yogurt, kefir, salmon, eggs, and other lean cuts of meat provide an abundance of healthful nutrients your body needs to function optimally,” Balls said. “When it comes to promoting overall health, variety is key so excluding certain foods out entirely can make it harder.”

Adequate protein intake is also key to promoting healthy aging as “it’s essential in maintaining muscle mass, strength, and function as you age.”

The study had some limitations, including that the participants were exclusively health professionals. Researchers suggest that replicating the study among more diverse populations could provide deeper insights into the findings’ broader relevance.

However, Guasch-Ferré said that while there may be some differences in overall health, such as access to health care and other factors, “we believe that the biological mechanisms underlying the associations between dietary patterns and healthy aging would be similar in other populations.”

According to Balls, “the earlier, the better” when it comes to disease prevention.

“One piece of advice I give to even younger kids is what you’re eating today, can affect how you age,” she added. “So moderation and variety are key at all stages of life!”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/28/2025 - 22:35

'Indirect Negotiations' On Nuclear Issue Possible: Iran Finally Replies In Letter To Trump

Iran has finally issued a formal response to US President Donald Trump's letter unveiled early this month which was addressed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The Trump letter had urged fresh nuclear negotiations, but was coupled with statements from the White House threatening attack if Tehran pursues atomic weapons.

The Islamic Republic in a formal letter issued to the White House in response says it is willing to enter "indirect" negotiations with Washington.

"Iran’s formal response to the letter from US President Donald Trump has been duly sent via Oman," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told IRNA on Thursday. "The official response comprises a letter wherein our viewpoints regarding the status quo and Mr. Trump’s letter have been fully laid out and relayed to the other side."

Getty Images

The FM said that while no direct official talks can be held so long as Trump keeps his "maximum pressure" sanctions regimen in place, it remains that "Indirect negotiations, though, can continue, as they existed in the past." 

"In circumstances where there is ‘maximum pressure,’ no one in their sound mind would enter into direct talks. The format of negotiations is always relevant in diplomatic relations … For now, our tactic is to have indirect negotiations," Araghchi explained.

In early March, Trump had unveiled before reporters that he had written Iran a letter, saying "I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal."

According to Axios, the US has lately built up military assets in the Mideast region with an eye toward Iran:

• In recent days, the U.S. military sent several B-2 stealth bombers to the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean in a deployment a U.S. official said was "not disconnected" from Trump's two-month deadline.
• The B-2 bombers can carry huge bunker buster bombs that would be a key element in any possible military action against Iran's underground nuclear facilities.
• A spokesperson for U.S. Strategic Command confirmed the deployment to Axios and said Stratcom "routinely conducts global operations in coordination with other combatant commands, services, and participating U.S. government agencies to deter, detect and, if necessary, defeat strategic attacks against the United States and its allies."

Just last week Ayatollah Khamenei warned that the US would "a severe slap" and "crushing blow" if it dared carry out any attacks against the Iran.

Iran has long complained that it can't take US commitments seriously anymore, after the prior Trump White House unilaterally pulled the US out of the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/28/2025 - 22:10

China Is Taking War To Earth Orbits: A 'Space Pearl Harbor' Is On The Way

Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

"With our commercial assets, we have observed five different objects in space maneuvering in and out and around each other in synchronicity and in control," the U.S. Space Force's Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein told the 16th annual McAleese Defense Programs conference in Arlington, Virginia on March 18. 

"That's what we call dogfighting in space. They are practicing tactics, techniques and procedures to do on-orbit space operations from one satellite to another."

Guetlein's stark comment about China signals a break with the past. "This marks the end of the Western-American-liberal dream of nations leaving wars on Earth so they can cooperate in space to advance humanity," Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center told Gatestone after the general's widely publicized remarks. "Communist China has now taken war to the heavens, to low earth orbit, and very likely, will take war to the moon, Mars, and beyond. The heavens are no longer safe for the democracies."

Space is now a highly contested domain, but it wasn't always this way. "We told ourselves we would be the dominant power forever," Brandon Weichert, author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, said to Gatestone. "We coasted on that notion for far too long. Rising powers, notably China and Russia, saw how reliant we were on space—and how poorly defended our systems were. Our access to the strategic high ground is now more threatened than ever before."

As Weichert points out, "bureaucratic inertia and a lack of visionary leadership from both political parties" allowed China and Russia to develop the capabilities to threaten America in space.

There was another party at fault: The U.S. military failed to protest when it could see there was an obvious threat. "There was a gentlemen's agreement until recent that we didn't mess with each other's space systems," Guetlein said. "We didn't jam them, we didn't spoof them, we didn't lase them, we just kept them safe."

Why was the U.S. so gentlemanly? Presidents believed that because the U.S. had more space assets than others, it was not in America's interest to trigger a race to build weapons to destroy those assets. Yet this view, appearing commonsense at first glance, was naïve: It was apparent even then that neither China nor Russia could be enticed into good behavior. Generals and admirals should have sounded the warning.

There was a lot to warn about. On January 11, 2007, for instance, China demonstrated its intentions by launching a modified ground-based DF-21 missile to destroy an old Chinese weather satellite.

In 2022, a Chinese satellite "grappled" a defunct Chinese satellite and towed it to a "graveyard orbit."

Moreover, as Fisher notes, China had already configured its one large orbiting platform, the Tiangong Space Station, for military missions as well as civilian ones. One of its modules can launch either very small satellites that can perform interception missions or satellites carrying powerful laser and microwave weapons that can destroy satellites in multiple orbits.

What was the American response to the obvious Chinese advances in space-warfare capabilities? Vice President Kamala Harris in April 2022 announced a unilateral moratorium on ground-launched anti-satellite missile tests, in the hopes that other nations would follow suit.

With this posture, it is no wonder why America's lead in space warfare—if it exists—is narrowing.

Now, China is making fast progress in building space weapons. "The Chinese ISR"—intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—"capabilities are become very capable," said Guetlein. "They have gone from what we used to call a 'Kill Chain' to a 'Kill Mesh.'" A Kill Mesh combines ISR satellites with an array of weapons systems.

The Chinese array appears impressive. As Fisher points out, the People's Liberation Army has developed ground-based ASAT—anti-satellite—interceptors to destroy satellites in both low earth orbit and much higher medium earth orbits. At the same time, China, as Guetlein's comments make clear, is working on "co-orbital" interceptors, satellites that can follow, approach, dock with, or use robotic arms to grapple other satellites into useless orbits.

For the future, Fisher reports, China is developing large, unmanned space planes that can re-enter the atmosphere to maneuver toward a new orbit and then relaunch into space to deploy energy and missile weapons. The PLA also appears to be working on large combat platforms that can attack satellite targets in multiple orbits. Expect the Chinese military also to deploy clusters of combat satellites to attack the Lunar and Martian satellite networks of the future.

"The recent demonstration of Chinese 'dogfighting' capabilities in space is an indicator that Beijing means to use force on earth," says Weichert. "By targeting sensitive U.S. military satellites, the People's Liberation Army can render us deaf, dumb, and blind, long before it strikes."

The Chinese are evidently planning to blind not only America's military but also America's civilian society, which is heavily dependent on space assets. Almost nothing modern in America will work when the Chinese are finished attacking in the heavens.

As Weichert said, "A space Pearl Harbor is at hand."

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/28/2025 - 21:45