Dawn Of A New Era

Authored by Bruce Abramson via RealClearPolitics,

The world is in flux. Our much-discussed national vibe shift suggests that Americans are beginning to feel the change, but it understates what’s happening by a very large margin. What we’re experiencing is of global significance: the dawn of a new era.

Between 1989 and 1991, the Communist bloc collapsed. The United States stood bestride the world, history’s first truly global hegemon. Perhaps unsurprisingly in retrospect, that dominance wreaked havoc on our national psyche.

The most popular idea of that moment, summarized in Francis Fukuyama’s provocative title, “The End of History,” shaped the reconstruction and expansion of the “liberal international order.”

Fukuyama’s theory stated that history’s most vexing question – how best to organize society – had been answered definitively. The Washington Consensus preached that free markets and free trade would set every society on an inexorable glide path toward civil liberties and self-governance. Liberal Democracy and its faithful companion Free Market Economics were on the march.

Though adoption might be uneven, every nation, every culture, every society, would inevitably find its way into the community of liberal, democratic nations. Sensitive to the possibility that some might resent these Western models, Western leadership embraced self-deracination, severing “liberal democracy” from every cultural root that had contributed to its development. In their zeal to globalize their preferred modes of political and economic organization, they devalued and defamed every cultural, religious, and ethical underpinning that had made those modes possible.

There is, however, nothing new under the sun. Though few (or even any) appreciated it at the time, the end-of-history crowd had merely updated an ancient message: We have won a surprisingly bloodless victory over a fearsome foe. Now all the peoples of the world will see the glory of our gods and bend themselves to our faith.

Three decades later, our efforts to universalize the bounties of liberal democracy have proved as fruitless as all prior efforts to universalize faith, belief, societal organization, and human behavior. We re-learned that there is genuine variability among cultures, priorities, and value systems. We very emphatically do not all want the same things.

Disastrous American misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan made the point clearly: Overthrowing an odious, militarily inferior regime is easy. Restructuring an alien society in your own image is far harder.

Other lessons were subtler. Bill Clinton had led the charge to open trade with China, arguing that prosperity was the key to liberty. The Chinese leadership, however, understood something its Western counterparts had apparently forgotten: A large and growing middle class is the key to regime stability.

Westerners once understood that lesson well. The welfare state was introduced to anchor newly enfranchised peasants to the regime granting them regular benefits – thereby deterring bloody revolution. Socialist opponents screamed – correctly – that the wealthy were merely bribing the poor to keep themselves in power.

China parlayed its wealth to develop a competing model of governance: an authoritarian surveillance state that monitors and enforces strict rules in selected spheres of social behavior while encouraging robust commercial activity.

Meanwhile, sizable majorities of every Western country fell out of love with the program their leadership was peddling. Some ran hard to the left, reviving and inventing revolutionary doctrines that would upend what remained of the West. Others leaned rightward, yearning for a restoration of the cultural and religious norms that had once animated their societies.

Western leadership preferred the forces of “progressive” revolution to those of “reactionary” tradition. The twin shocks of Brexit and Trump pushed them into overdrive. They waged war against their own citizens, declaring any longing for tradition as hateful, dangerous, and insurrectionist.

The matter came to a head in 2020. Klaus Schwab, head of the globalist confab at Davos, put the matter clearly in The Great Reset and The Great Narrative: The variants of the Chinese model that had emerged to shut the world down during COVID exemplified global good governance at its very finest. They needed to become permanent, truly international, and focused on future crises – specifically, the looming climate crisis.

We had come full circle: Only widespread surveillance and enforced social conditioning could ensure the survival of liberal democracy. Echoes of “you will learn to love your neighbor if we have to beat it into you!” resonated loudly.

Our mid-2023 emergence from COVID found the world in a state that many recognized as superficially familiar but somehow, not quite right. Internal governance, individual rights, alliance structures, and the international order were suddenly all up for grabs. An era had ended; a new one was dawning.

When the history of our American hegemonic era is written, it will reflect a toxic combination of unrivaled innovation, prosperity, and technological advancement with a shocking and near total collapse of morality, faith, and community.

The defining question of the present moment is which new directions will define the future. The Chinese model remains immensely popular among the Western elite. Its strongest advocates, no longer sufficiently popular to govern on their own, have allied with the revolutionary left – in Canada, France, the UK, and a growing number of Western countries.

The U.S. has chosen a very different path – at least for the moment. The new Trump administration seeks to restore traditions and norms while disempowering the elite organizations that have supplanted them. A new web of allies with similar preferences – Argentina, Hungary, Israel, the UAE, India, and others – are cheering the move.

The next few years will prove critical. Which direction will define our future? For the sake of our children, we should all hope that the new team arriving in Washington chooses far more wisely than did its recent predecessors. We are indeed living through the dawn of a new era.

Bruce Abramson is the director of New Student & Graduate Admissions at New College of Florida and a fellow of the Coalition for America. His recent books include “The New Civil War” (RealClear Publishing, 2021) on the corruption of higher education and “American Spirit or Great Awokening?” (Academica Press, 2024) on America’s spiritual crisis and the new religion of Wokeism.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 20:55

San Francisco Mayor Orders City Workers To Report Back To The Office

After the left clutched pearls for an entire news cycle over DOGE ordering federal employees to report back to the office, San Francisco is taking a page out of their book.

The City of Oakland, Calif., on March 25, 2024. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

On Friday, the Epoch Times reported that SF Mayor Daniel Lurie (D) has ordered city workers back into the office.

"Bringing our workers back to the office will make our services more effective and responsive to our residents," spokesperson Charles Kretchmer Lutvak told the Times in an email. "That is what San Franciscans expect and what Mayor Lurie will deliver. We look forward to working with our partners across the departments and in labor over the coming weeks to implement the mayor’s plan."

The move reverses a July 21 decision by former mayor London Breed, who signed an amendment to the city's Health Care Security Ordinance allowing employees to telecommute during the pandemic. Telecommuting had begun in the city on March 17, 2020, however, with the city's shelter-in-place order.

As the Times notes further, not all city workers have been working from home since the pandemic, as the Port of San Francisco began welcoming all telecommuting employees back in November 2021, though the County of San Francisco Department of Human Resources (DHR) and SF Port at the time required all city workers to be vaccinated.

During his inaugural speech earlier this month, Lurie did not mention city workers but said he wanted to entice people to return to the downtown area.

“My job is not to demand that the private sector be back in the office every day. My job is to make you want to be downtown again for work—with your friends and with your family,” Lurie said.

“This is truly a new era of cooperation and mutual respect between City Hall, the Board of Supervisors, law enforcement, and the thousands of city employees working on the front lines—without you we cannot carry out this vision for change.”

Telecommuting in both the private and public sectors has been a problem for the economic activity of downtown San Francisco, the city has said. According to city data, nearly 470,000 people commuted into San Francisco every weekday prior to the COVID-19 lockdowns, drumming up significant economic activity for the downtown area.

Work-from-home reduced economic activity, hurting small businesses in the economic core. As recently as Feb. 5, San Francisco lagged behind major cities such as Austin, Los Angeles, New York, and San Jose in office attendance. While 55 percent of New Yorkers work in the office, only 43 percent of workers in San Francisco commute to the office.

Lockdowns resulted in San Francisco office attendance dropping to less than 10 percent of what it had been prior. It began to slowly increase in the summer of 2021 and 2022. The reduction in the city’s in-person overall workforce led to significant economic losses for the city, according to research by WFH Research Group.

Telecommuting had been framed by the city as an opportunity to increase productivity, recruit and retain talent, save employees time due to not having to commute, and decrease the city’s carbon footprint.

A Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco report, however, found little evidence of increased productivity due to telecommuting.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 20:30

Californians Falling Behind On Bill Payments Amid Soaring Debt Levels

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Californians are falling behind on their bills amid the highest per capita debt levels since 2008, according to debt statistics by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in its most recent Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit.

In the first quarter of 2024, household debt per capita in California peaked at $86,940 before decreasing slightly in the fourth quarter to $86,130. The average U.S. per capita debt was only $50,540 in the fourth quarter.

Furthermore, a rising number of Californians were falling behind on said debt. New York Fed numbers show that 3.25 percent of Californians fell 30 days late on debt repayment in the fourth quarter—a nine-year high. That’s the highest level since 2016’s first quarter. The U.S. average for this metric was even higher, at 4.14 percent.

Joel Kotkin, executive director at Chapman University Center for Demographics and Policy, said that while households in other states also struggle with bills, California’s debt numbers may be high due to the cost of living.

“The pressures may be greater due to high costs,” he told The Epoch Times.

Bad habits plus a mediocre economy, he said, could mean more Californians will opt to rent instead of buy, or go into further debt to buy a home.

“They won’t be buying houses as much as elsewhere, but if they do, their debts will be enormous,” Kotkin said.

A December 2024 report by Upgraded Points, a financial information website, found that the California metropolitan area with the most severe credit card delinquencies—defined as 90 days or more past due—is the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario region with a 15.2 percent delinquency rate, the eighth worst in the nation. Meanwhile, the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metropolitan area had the lowest in the nation at 6.3 percent.

According to data compiled by personal finance company WalletHub in January, California ranks 11th in overall credit card delinquency with 21.58 percent. Another WalletHub report, released in July 2024, found that the city of Chula Vista in San Diego County leads the nation in the largest increase in credit card delinquencies, nearly 85 percent during the first quarter of 2024.

Numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show the unemployment rate in California remained relatively steady from July to December 2024, ticking only slightly higher to 5.5 percent. The manufacturing sector, however, saw a 3.4 percent decrease in employment over the same period.

Household debt is not only on the rise in California. 

The New York Fed numbers show that nationwide household debt increased by $93 billion to reach $18.04 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2024. Furthermore, mortgage balances nationwide increased by $11 billion in the third quarter to $12.61 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter.

Auto loan, credit card, and home equity lines of credit delinquencies slightly increased in 2024. Auto loans, in particular, saw an $11 billion increase to $1.66 trillion in the fourth quarter. Credit card balances, meanwhile, increased $45 billion in the fourth quarter for a total of $1.21 trillion at the end of last year.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 20:05

Sheriff Says Gene Hackman And Wife Could Have Been Dead For Weeks Before Discovery

A sheriff in New Mexico said Friday that Oscar-winner Gene Hackman and his wife could have been dead for weeks and noted that pills found at the scene are concerning, while noting there are conflicting reports about the incident.

Hackman, 95, and his wife, Betsy Arakawa, 65, apparently had been dead as long as several weeks when investigators found their bodies while searching the couple’s Santa Fe home on Wednesday, said Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza.

“Just based on their bodies and other evidence on the body, it appears several days and possibly up to a couple weeks,” Mendoza told the “Today“ show on Friday morning, when asked about the timing of their deaths.

When asked whether Hackman and his wife died at the same time in their home in Santa Fe or if either passed before the other, the sheriff told the outlet, “I think that’s very difficult to determine. I think it’s going to be pretty close.”

“You know, there’s no indication that anyone was moving about the house or doing anything different, so it’s very difficult to determine if they both passed at the same time or how close they passed together,” Mendonza said. 

“We’re trying to put that information together and, obviously, with the assistance of the office of the medical investigator, I think the autopsy report is going to be the key to this investigation.”

The Epoch Times' Jack Phillips reports that investigators are also attempting to figure out the last time anyone saw or spoke to them, Mendoza added.

“It’s very difficult to put a timeline together even with the help of the office of the medical investigator,” he said, adding that Hackman and Arakawa, a classical pianist, were “very private individuals and a private family.”

Aside from Hackman and Arakawa, one of their dogs was found dead nearby, according to a search warrant affidavit. A maintenance worker called 911 after spotting the bodies at the couple’s Santa Fe home. He reported the home’s front door was open when he arrived to do routine work, a detective wrote.

In a recording of the 911 call, though, the worker said he could see Arakawa lying on the floor through a window, but he was unable to get inside.

In the interview, Mendoza noted that there are conflicting accounts about the doors, whether they were locked or unlocked, and said an investigation is underway. Several of their doors were unlocked and a back door was open, allowing two of their other dogs to go in and out, he said, while adding he suspects the front door was unlocked and closed.

The affidavit said that their deaths were deemed “suspicious enough in nature to require a thorough search and investigation because the reporting party found the front door of the residence unsecured and opened.”

There was also an opened bottle of prescription medication and pills scattered on a nearby countertop, officials noted.

“Deputies observed a healthy dog running loose on the property, another healthy dog near the deceased female, a deceased dog laying 10-15 feet from the deceased female in a closet of the bathroom, the heater being moved, the pill bottle being opened and pills scattered next to the female, the male decedent being located in a separate room of the residence, and no obvious signs of a gas leak,” the search warrant stated.

A sheriff’s detective wrote that there were no obvious signs of a gas leak, but he noted that people exposed to gas leaks or carbon monoxide might not show signs of poisoning. Neither had obvious signs of blunt force trauma, the warrant added.

On Friday, Mendoza said that the pill bottle is “very important” to investigators.

“That’s obviously very important evidence,” the sheriff said., adding that “we’re looking at that specifically and other medications that were possibly in the residence. So that is something of concern.”

Hackman was a five-time Oscar nominee who won best actor in a leading role for “The French Connection” in 1972 and best actor in a supporting role for “Unforgiven” two decades later. He’s also appeared in a number of other critically acclaimed films such as “The Conversation,” “The Royal Tenenbaums,” and “Hoosiers.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 19:40

VDH: Who Caused The Counter-Revolution?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

At some point, some president was going to have to stop the unsustainable spending and borrowing.

To have any country left, some president would eventually have had to restore a nonexistent border and stop the influx of 3 million illegal aliens a year.

Some commander-in-chief finally would have to try to stop the theater wars abroad.

But any president who dared to do any of that would be damned for curbing the madness that his predecessors fueled.

And so none did—until now.

Not since Franklin Roosevelt’s rapid and mass implementation of the New Deal administrative state have Americans seen such radical changes so quickly as now in Trump’s first month of governance.

Americans are watching a long-awaited counter-revolution to bring the country out of its madness by restoring the common sense of the recent past.

It is easy to run up massive debts and hard to pay them back. Politicians profit by handing out grants and hiring thousands with someone else’s money or creating new programs by growing the debt.

Yet it is unpopular and considered “mean” to spend only what you have and to create a lean, competent workforce.

1776, not 1619, is the foundational date of America.

Biological men should not manipulate their greater size and strength to undermine the hard-won accomplishment of women athletes.

Affordable fossil fuels, when used wisely, are still essential to modern prosperity.

American education must remain empirical and inductive, not regress into indoctrination and deduction. If college campuses no longer abide by the Bill of Rights, then perhaps they should pay taxes on income from their endowments and guarantee their own student loans.

If American citizens are arrested and arraigned for violent assaults, destroying property, and resisting arrest, then surely foreign students who break the laws of their hosts should be held to the same account—and if guilty, go home.

Tribalism and racialism, and government spoils allotted by superficial appearances, are the marks of a pre-civilized society. Such racialism leads only to endless factions and discord.

It is easy to destroy a border, and hard to reconstruct it. And it was not Trump who invited in 12 million unaudited illegal aliens, a half million of them criminals.

Who is the real culprit in the Defense Department—the new secretary with the hard task of restoring the idea among depleted ranks that our race, religion, and gender are incidental, not essential, to defeating the enemy and ensuring our national security?

Is it really wise to divert money from needed combat units and weapons to indoctrinate recruits with social and cultural agendas that do not enhance, but likely undermine, our national defenses?

Who is the real callous actor—Elon Musk, who is trying to prevent the country from insolvency by eliminating fraud and waste, or those who bloated the bureaucracy in the first place with jobs and subsidies for their constituents, friends, clients, and fellow ideologues?

No one likes to fire FBI agents.

That certainly is an unpleasant job for the new FBI Director, Kash Patel.

But again, who are the true culprits who so cavalierly turned a hallowed agenda into a weaponized tool to warp elections, harass political enemies, lie under oath, surveil parents at school board meetings, doctor court documents, and protect insider friends?

Massive borrowing is an opiate addiction that needs shock treatment, not more deficits to break the habit. An unchecked administrative state becomes an organic organism that exists only to grow larger, more powerful, and more resistant to any who seek to curb it.

Yet those who brought the cultural revolution of the last years are now screaming that it is unfair to restore what they undermined. It is as if a patient blames only the tough chemotherapy and not the invasive cancer that it seeks to cure.

Most of the Trump people are not high-fiving firing people. They are not laying off miners or frackers and directing them to go “code” or dismissing half the country as “deplorables.”

The left screams that those who are tasked with balancing a budget and pruning back a strangling bureaucracy are heartless.

No, the pitiless are those who recklessly sought to hire with borrowed money and fire people on the basis of their race, used federal programs to feather their own nests, and harassed and arrested those for their politics.

No SWAT teams are now raiding the homes of ex-presidents.

No one is trying to take a presidential rival off state ballots.

No one is coordinating local, state, and federal prosecutors to indict, harass, and bankrupt an ex-president.

And no president—his dementia sheathed by political insiders and toadish media—is working three days a week, avoiding press conferences, or stonewalling reporters’ questions.

No wonder the current normal seems abnormal to the status quo of the recent past.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 19:15

AG Pam Bondi Warns 3 States Over Transgender Sports Rules

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday warned Minnesota, California, and Maine that they need to comply with federal law to keep “men out of women’s sports,” according to a statement issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice Building in Washington on Feb. 12, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The DOJ said Bondi sent letters to the officials of those three states and said that they may be out of compliance with an order signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month that makes it illegal for transgender individuals to compete in women’s and girls’ sports.

“This Department of Justice will defend women and does not tolerate state officials who ignore federal law,” Bondi said in the statement. “We will leverage every legal option necessary to ensure state compliance with federal law and President Trump’s executive order protecting women’s sports.”

Bondi sent letters to California Interscholastic Federation Executive Director Ron Nocetti, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Erich Martens, executive director of the Minnesota State High School League. She also sent a letter to Maine Gov. Janet Mills.

Trump and Mills, a Democrat, were involved in a verbal altercation on Feb. 20 while the president was meeting with governors. The president told Mills that she needed to comply with the executive order or he would withhold education funding to her state.

“We are the federal law,” Trump told her at one point. “You‘d better do it. You’d better do it, because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t.”

“See you in court,” Mills said in response, according to a video recording of the exchange between the two.

Trump then told her: “Good, I'll see you in court.”

In a statement on Feb. 21, Mills said that she and the state of Maine won’t “be intimidated” by Trump’s warning that federal education funding could be withheld.

“If the President attempts to unilaterally deprive Maine school children of the benefit of Federal funding, my Administration and the Attorney General will take all appropriate and necessary legal action to restore that funding and the academic opportunity it provides,” she said.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said in a letter last week that Trump’s order “would violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act,” a state law that allows transgender individuals to compete in women’s sports.

“The Executive Order does not have the force of law and therefore does not preempt any aspect of Minnesota law. Complying with the Executive Order and prohibiting students from participation in extracurricular activities consistent with their gender identity would violate” state law, the letter said.

Under the executive order, the Trump administration can deny federal funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. Schools that do not comply with the order would be deemed to be violating Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and educational programs that get federal funds.

“It is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy,” his order said. “It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.”

During his 2024 campaign, Trump often said that he would move to end allowing transgender individuals from competing in women’s sports.

Aside from the order on women’s sports, Trump also signed several orders to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government.

One order declares that the federal government would recognize only two immutable sexes: male and female. The definition will be based on whether people are born with eggs or sperm, rather than on their chromosomes. The change is being pitched as a way to protect women from what the administration has called gender extremism.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 18:50

Critics Suspect A Softball Ethics Verdict Is Coming On Hunter Biden's Law License

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearPolitics,

Although Hunter Biden got away with multiple crimes thanks to his father’s unprecedented pardon, he still faces punishment for his conduct before the District of Columbia Bar. Even presidential clemency cannot shield him from possible suspension of his law license.

But former President Biden’s pardon has muddled – and delayed – the process of deciding Hunter’s professional fate, according to the D.C. attorney who is leading the investigation into his fitness to practice law in the nation’s capital. And legal critics view this as favoritism possibly leading to a resolution short of disbarment.

“This is a very complicated situation because of the pardon,” Hamilton Fox of the bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel said in an interview with RealClearInvestigations. Fox serves as the prosecutor in disciplinary cases for members of the D.C. Bar.

With Biden’s firearms and tax-evasion convictions wiped clean, Fox said, he and his investigators have to “prove” all over again that he violated the law before they can pursue a case against him for possible disbarment.

"Essentially, there is a process that we follow once there is a criminal conviction, but the pardon disrupted that process,” Fox explained. "After the pardon, there is no criminal conviction, but the misconduct that occurred doesn’t go away. So now we are required to start over.”

Added Fox: “Instead of relying on the conviction, we have to follow the normal procedure and prove the misconduct.”

After a jury in Delaware found Biden guilty of three gun-related felonies last June, his license was automatically suspended because any felony is considered a “serious crime” under D.C. Bar rules. But his suspension is temporary pending an investigation to determine if his criminal acts were serious enough to meet the bar’s “moral turpitude”threshold for more severe and lasting punishment, including long-term suspension or even disbarment.

Such misconduct generally requires criminal intent or recklessness. Offenses involving “violence,” such as reckless use of firearms, and “dishonesty,” such as cheating on taxes, fall into this category.

On Dec. 1, two weeks before Biden was scheduled for sentencing in both the gun case and a felony tax conviction in California, his father issued a blanket pardon nullifying his guilt and sparing him expected prison time.

Hunter Biden has been a member of the D.C. Bar since 2007 and has used his license to practice law there for a number of years. Though he now works as an artist, his paintings have lost value since his father opted not to seek a second term.

A Washington watchdog group suspects investigators for the D.C. Bar are not serious about punishing Biden and are dragging their feet in the probe, which is now entering its ninth month.

“While Hunter Biden’s pardon for committing felonies was bad enough, the D.C. Bar’s slow-walking disciplinary action against him based on the pardon is outrageous and inexcusable,” said Paul Kamenar, counsel to the National Legal and Policy Center, an ethics watchdog that previously filed a formal complaint against Biden with the Justice Department alleging he violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Kamenar argued there is no reason to re-prove the crimes committed by Biden. “That’s a lame excuse,” he said. He pointed out that Biden originally pleaded guilty to the gun charges, before a judge ripped up a “sweetheart deal” he made with prosecutors and forced a trial which ended in a jury unanimously finding him guilty on all counts. Biden copped a plea to the tax charges as well.

Fox’s own ethics adviser has said a presidential pardon shouldn’t impact bar discipline. “[It] relieves a criminal or criminal defendant of the punishment, but it doesn’t necessarily have any effect on the ethics violation,” said Saul Jay Singer, senior legal ethics counsel to the D.C. Bar.

Records reviewed by RCI reveal that staff errors by lawyers working for Fox have resulted in additional delays. In one misstep, attorneys were supposed to file an updated “status report” on the Biden case on Dec. 21, but did not do so until Jan. 7.

“Disciplinary Counsel’s failure to file this update was inadvertent,” Fox’s staff attorneys explained to the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility, the legal body hearing the Biden case.

The belated status report simply stated, “The investigation remains ongoing,” while adding that “the parties intend to discuss possible dispositions of this matter soon.”

In other words, Kamenar said, Fox plans to enter into settlement talks with Hunter’s lawyers on how to dispose of the charges.

“Considering the slap on the wrist the D.C. Bar gave former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith for his felony criminal conviction for altering a CIA document to obtain a FISA search warrant to spy on a Trump adviser, it’s not surprising that Fox appears to be giving Hunter undeserved leniency,” Kamenar added.

Fox negotiated a light sentence for Clinesmith, a registered Democrat who sent anti-Trump rants to FBI colleagues after the 2016 election and then doctored evidence against Trump aide Carter Page, as RealClearIinvestigations first reported. Even the Democrat-controlled Board on Professional Responsibility noted that the deal was “unusual.” Clinesmith was let off with “time served” after just seven months of suspension. His D.C. Bar status was restored to “active member” in “good standing.” (Clinesmith was legally represented by Eric Yaffe, the former chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility. Yaffe is a major Democratic donor, records show, who’s supported Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.)

Kamenar questioned the impartiality of Fox, a Democrat who like Hunter is a Yale Law School alumnus. Federal Election Commission records show Fox, a former Watergate prosecutor, has contributed several thousand dollars to Democratic political candidates, including Obama. 

While Fox declined to comment on accusations of bias, he addressed concerns about a settlement in lieu of punishment for Biden. “A disposition means we agree upon a sanction and don’t try the case,” Fox said. “But it is different and more complex than a plea bargain in a criminal case.”

Asked if a deal is in the works, Fox said that such matters are “confidential.” Hunter Biden’s attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

However, Fox suggested his office is using an old case involving Reagan administration official Elliott Abrams as a precedent. In 1992, President Bush pardoned Abrams of perjury charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal. The next year, the D.C. Bar found Abrams committed the crimes and suspended him from practice for one year.

Contrast With Giuliani et al.

Kamenar believes Hunter’s crimes are serious enough for the bar to suspend his license for at least three years. He pointed out that the D.C. Bar’s rules for professional conduct expressly state that criminal conduct such as “willful failure to file an income tax return” reflects “adversely on fitness to practice law.”

In a recent report responding to Biden’s pardons, Special Counsel David Weiss, who prosecuted Hunter, said his tax crimes were serious and egregious, and he should have known better as a trained attorney.

“As a well-educated lawyer, Mr. Biden consciously and willfully chose not to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes over a four-year period,” from 2016 to 2020.

Weiss said Biden’s crimes were not “inconsequential” or “technical” tax code violations, but were part of a deliberate “scheme” to cheat the IRS that can’t be “explained away by his drug use.”

“After becoming sober, he chose to file false returns to evade payment of taxes he owed,” the special prosecutor wrote. “Instead of paying his taxes, he chose to spend the money on [female] escorts, luxury hotels, and exotic cars,” and even wrote off the prostitutes as business expenses on tax returns he eventually filed.

Regarding his illegally obtained gun, Weiss said Biden “carelessly left it unsecured on a property where children lived.” And in an additional “aggravating factor,” he noted, Biden lied on a federal form to obtain the revolver, along with a speed loader and hollow-point bullets.

“As a Yale-educated lawyer, he understood that he was lying on the background check form he filled out and the consequences of doing so,” Weiss said. “But he did it anyway, because he wanted to own a gun, even though he was actively using crack cocaine.”

Asked if he will use Weiss' report as guidance in his probe of Hunter Biden, Fox replied, "I have it."

Other critics point out that Fox, in contrast, has thrown the book at embattled Republican members of the bar. He recommended the disbarment of Trump lawyers and advisers Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, and Paul Manafort, for example.

Giuliani’s conduct “calls for only one sanction, and that’s the sanction of disbarment,” Fox said. “What Mr. Giuliani did was use his law license to undermine the legitimacy of a presidential election, to undermine the basic premise of the democratic system that we all live in, that has been in place since the 1800s in this country.”

Fox accused Clark of being “intentionally dishonest” about the 2020 election results. But the board rejected his request for disbarment and has recommended a two-year suspension. His case is still being heard by the court of appeals.

“Mr. Clark is in front of the D.C. Bar’s Board because the head of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel dislikes the advice he believes Mr. Clark gave to former President Trump,” Clark’s attorney said. “If this power grab by the D.C. Bar is successful, it will transform the head of the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, a local government official, into the most powerful lawyer in the country, granting him a permanent supervisory role and veto over the highest counsels of the federal government.”

Last year, government ethics watchdog Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, filed a complaint against Fox over what he called selective prosecution of Republican members of the bar and favorable treatment for Democratic lawyers.

In the court filing, he wrote: “Once Fox took over as Disciplinary Counsel, ODC has steadily transformed into a highly partisan tool and weapon of the entire District of Columbia attorney discipline apparatus with the apparent goal of removing prominent conservative and Republican activist attorneys from the practice of law in the District of Columbia.”

Added Klayman: “Fox has made it clear that he hates President Trump and those who support him. He has made a point to personally try disciplinary complaints against pro-Trump Republican individuals, despite the fact that the chief disciplinary counsel generally does not perform that function.”

He pointed to a Politico article that reported that the D.C. Court of Appeals “had to step in and stop his attempts to strip away Trump Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark’s constitutional Fifth Amendment rights, and tellingly, Fox responded by saying, ‘I’m not going to push that hearing back unless somebody cuts off one of my arms.’”

This shows his animus towards conservative and Republican activist attorneys who are pro-Trump,” Klayman said.

*  *  *

Paul Sperry is an investigative reporter for RealClearInvestigations. He is also a longtime media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Sperry was previously the Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, and his work has appeared in the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Houston Chronicle, among other major publications.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 18:25

How Long Do Muslims Fast For Ramadan Around The World?

This year's Ramadan is expected to start on the night of Friday, February 28, with the first day of fasting on Saturday, March 1. 

As Statista's Anna Fleck reports, the holy month is based on the Islamic lunar calendar which is 11 days shorter than the Gregorian solar year, and so its start shifts earlier each year. While the number of days of Ramadan are equal for all Muslims observing it around the world, the length of the daily fast is not.

 

You will find more infographics at Statista

During Ramadan, observers vow to abstain from eating, drinking, smoking and sexual activities through daylight hours. 

This means that those living further north have to fast for much longer than their counterparts living closer to the equator or even to those in the Southern hemisphere, which is currently tilted away from the sun. 

The chart above, based on data from website islamicfinder.com, shows that Muslims fasting for Ramadan in Reykjavík, Island, will have to fast for up to 16 hours and 29 minutes, which is the time between sunrise and sunset on March 29, the last and longest day of fasting this year. 

Meanwhile Muslims living in Melbourne, Australia, will only need to fast for a maximum of 13 hours and 16 minutes.

With the dates of Ramadan moving, there can be a significant difference in the length of fasting depending on the year.

For example, in 2013, Ramadan took place during the peak of summer for the Northern Hemisphere, with countries such as Norway experiencing sundown for only around three hours at night. 

This meant practicing communities faced fasts lasting upwards of 20 hours. 

To counterbalance this, Muslims may also observe Ramadan using the timetable of Mecca (13 hours and 35 minutes in 2025) or their nearest Muslim city.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 18:00

Perspectives From A Senior Staffer And NIH Loyalist: The Dark Side Of NIH Leadership

Authored by an anonymous NIH official via Paul Thacker's The DisInformation Chronicle,

As someone who works directly with the NIH Director’s office, I am dismayed by the disingenuous coverage of NIH in places like the New York Times and Science Magazine. Very little of what I read comports with my own experience and I am worried that scientists and the general public are getting a false view of the real problems inside the world’s largest funder of biomedical research.

Every large institution is fraught with palace politics, but today’s NIH is suffering from a deeply entrenched senior leadership in the director’s office that is plagued by enmity, distrust and isolation. The NIH Director works in Building 1 and oversees 27 other Institutes that research various diseases—the one most people have heard of is the National Cancer Institute. But to most of these institute directors, Building1 is a dark hole they both fear and despise. If you’re a running a research lab in Wisconsin this probably doesn’t matter to you; if you’re bed ridden with an undiagnosed, complex neurological disease—a life put on hold—why would you care?

But at every level today NIH’s management is distanced further away from its overall mission to advance science that improves health.

NIH scientists are quite busy with their research and don’t always read news about NIH scandals. I don’t, because I don’t really have time, nor do I care. But turmoil from the recent election has caused me to read about the retirement of Dr. Lawrence Tabak, who served as Principal Deputy Director, the number two position at NIH. I have worked with and observed Dr. Tabak’s ascent to this commanding position at NIH, from which he weaponized systems and processes to harm those who disagreed with his views or decisions.

Yet, I saw none of this in a news account by the New York Times and much of the reporting seemed to describe a different person than the Larry Tabak that I know. According to this New York Times reporter, Tabak’s retirement was “surprising” as he was “long considered a steadying force” and “someone who could work across party lines.”

Tabak’s retirement was not “surprising.” After Trump won office, Tabak told senior NIH officials several times in private meetings that he might be forced to retire or step down. And he was only a “steadying force” if he liked you personally and you didn’t dare to question his decisions or those made by his favored staff.

I find it odd that the New York Times would report that Tabak was “someone who could work across party lines.” Like almost every NIH leader, Tabak is a committed Democrat who can work with Republicans if he holds his nose, but he despised President Trump. Several have heard Tabak say several times that he couldn't stand to be in the same room as Trump.

Science Magazine quoted former NIH employee Carrie Wolinetz complimenting Dr. Tabak, saying, “There is probably no single person who is as universally highly respected at NIH as Larry Tabak.” On the contrary, he is likely the most feared and disliked individual at the NIH and his departure brings relief to many.

Science Magazine must have been hunting only for compliments, because they also ran a comment posted on Bluesky by Jeremy Berg, former director of NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Berg very accurately describes that it was Tabak’s unfortunate job to deal with all the NIH’s messy and intractable problems. “Larry has shoveled so much $hit over the years that he would have been well qualified to work behind the elephants in an old circus,” Berg said.

But Tabak flung that $hit on many of those around him, often injuring us with the same shovel he threw around to make himself look good to his superiors and university leaders. As for the STAT news headline that Tabak’s retirement “adds to sense of deep uncertainty,” I would say it brings a sense of optimism about the agency’s future.

Like almost every NIH leader, Tabak is a committed Democrat who can work with Republicans if he holds his nose, but he despised President Trump.

I can only guess that NIH leadership and the press office are feeding these stories to reporters, because they do not comport with the experiences of many others including myself. My point is that outsiders are given a warped view of the problems inside the agency, and are not equipped to understand that change is needed.

Tabak’ retirement put him in the news, a position he shied away from for many years. He virtually ran the NIH because Francis Collins, who was director for over a decade, allowed him full rein. Widely regarded as an expert chess player, Tabak ran the place behind the scenes like a mafia Don, rewarding his friends and bullying others who hurt his ego.

When the Senate confirmed Monica Bertagnolli as the new NIH Director in 2023, I wondered if her leadership might fix many of the agency’s problems, but this was not the case. Dr. Bergnatoli lost 36 votes in her confirmation to mostly Republican senators from rural states, and she was hell bent on keeping that job.

She began to court the Senators she lost, and started building a research portfolio focused on a more politically neutral definition for diversity. Instead of using race or color as a means of establishing diversity, she launched new initiatives that called for diversity based on access to rural health care.

But this work meant she did not have the time to focus on running NIH, and because Tabak knew how to get things done, he became her valuable second hand and continued holding on to power. Collins was very crafty in managing NIH politics and let Tabak do his dirty work, as long as he behaved in public, as self-effacing and humble. But Bertagnolli was just clueless, and Tabak surrounded her with people based on loyalty to him, not her mission for public research.

The word diversity is a big buzzword inside the NIH but I don't really think they care about hiring minorities and women as much as following guidelines, rules and regulations that tout diversity. Minority women and men across the campus are just not promoted. Yes, there have been initiatives, and diversity emails to read, and classes to take, but NIH has long been a male dominated environment.

It’s a Woke culture that isn’t really woke.

There have been attempts to change this with more female leaders in the last 10 years. But NIH is not a merit-based system. It’s a cabal where people appoint their loyalists and contrive to manipulate our public agency to their personal advantage. Not enough women are at the top with clout to give handouts, so it’s a slow, slow transformation.

The NIH is now in the press almost every day for alleged “funding cuts for research” but that’s not really true. The NIH has cut costs that universities can charge for administrative fees, but they have not cut the grant money provided directly to scientists. I can’t explain why this is being twisted in the news, but I’m sure that people in the director’s office are doing this to harm the credibility of the incoming NIH Director.

These are the games that NIH leadership play all the time. They use the media to manipulate coverage and maintain control, often to cover up things they fail to deliver to the public.

Some of this misinformation you are reading about NIH funding cuts is likely also coming from universities who have grown used to fat checks from the NIH, but nobody is really taking money away from them. It’s about being fair with taxpayer money.

Everyone thinks that the most prestigious scientists on planet Earth work at universities like Harvard and Oxford, but within the scientific world many are in awe of the researchers at the NIH. Over 170 NIH scientists or those whose research is supported by NIH have won Nobel Prizes. NIH has its own intramural science program designed to perform cutting edge studies, some of which is almost impossible to do in a university setting. For example, if a child or an adult has a very rare condition that no one can diagnose, NIH can actually do genetic analyses and work backwards to identify the cause of the disease and then design therapies to help these patients.

But over the last decade or so, NIH’s intramural program has ballooned into an unmanageable enterprise, with over 1,2000 principal investigators. And while brilliant work is being done, there’s also complacency, stagnation, and entitlement. Because they are at NIH, federal researchers get a lot of guaranteed money that scientists at universities have to bust for. And there’s not much accountability.

NIH labs and research programs get reviewed by scientists at prestigious research universities to ensure they publish excellent studies. But these university scientists are, at the same time, beholden to the NIH for grants to fund their own studies. This conflict of interest ensures that the reviews are biased to favor NIH labs, because no professor wants to anger the agency that funds his own grants.

For this reason, numerous NIH scientists go unchecked and continue running their research programs for too many years.

Tony Fauci is the most notable example of someone rising through the ranks to become an institute director who was feared for decades because he held the purse strings to billions of dollars in grants as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Anyone inside the NIH who questioned Tony got shafted and targeted by the leadership in the NIH Director’s office.

Throughout the pandemic, America was consumed by debate over whether the pandemic started from a lab accident, and most scientists seem to believe it didn’t. But in his final week, President Biden handed Tony Fauci a preemptive pardon, and the pardon stretched all the way back to 2014. That was the first year Fauci began funding EcoHealth Alliance, which subcontracted with a lab in Wuhan, China for gain-of-function virus research. A few days after President Trump was sworn in, the CIA released a Biden administration assessment that found the coronavirus is "more likely" to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals.

When Congress investigated Fauci’s management of the grant to EcoHealth Alliance they found a lack of transparency and a blatant cover-up. These congressional hearings are available online, as are the Committee reports and the NIH documents and emails Congress released. Yet Tabak nor anyone inside the Director’s office ever discussed these matters with the broader NIH community, nor did they inform NIH scientists of what Congress uncovered.

Nobody within NIH leadership was held responsible for what happened with EcoHealth Alliance, nor have they been held liable for other scandals. Congress found that NIH hid their handling of sexual harassment complaints, forcing a Committee to send them legal subpoeanas. NIH also denied performing gain-of-function studies on monkeypox virus, until Congress caught them doing so. Pile on top of this, an NIH Alzheimer’s researcher was caught in fraud, and there has been a complete lack of accountability for an NIH-funded scientist who failed to release a study on puberty blockers, because the results did not align with orthodoxy that puberty blockers benefit transgender children.

In each of these disgraceful incidents, the NIH old guard circled the wagons instead of protecting science, because they are corrupted with power. The proof is in their behavior, and every time Congress confronted them, there was always this stonewalling and masking of accountability

Coverup has been the hallmark of people in the director’s office for over a decade.

Most staff, including myself, are puzzled by the sudden change of attitude towards NIH, both by Congress and the public. How did an institution that was held in such high regard and that was blessed with bipartisan support for so long sink to this level of distrust and suspicion?

If you go to the press, to complain about the NIH you are done for. Remaining anonymous while speaking up for change is now the best option for anyone at NIH wishing for a complete leadership overhaul to bring about a brighter future.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 17:40

"Linguistic Racism" - Trump To Sign Order Making English The Official Language Of US

President Donald Trump is planning an executive order to make English the official language of the United States.

The planned order, obtained and reviewed by The Epoch Times and confirmed by a White House official, is unique to the nation’s 250-year history.

Aaron Gifford reports via The Epoch Times that the new order would rescind a federal mandate by President Bill Clinton that required any agencies receiving federal money to provide language assistance to those who do not speak English.

It would allow agencies to maintain practices of providing documents in services in other languages “but encourages new Americans to adopt a national language that opens doors to greater opportunities.”

“Agencies will have the flexibility to decide how and when to offer services in languages other than English to best service the American people and fulfill their agency mission,” the White House fact sheet of the planned order reads, also noting that English is the most widely used of the 350 different languages spoken across the country.

“Establishing English as the official language promotes unity, establishes efficiency in government operations, and creates a pathway for civic engagement.”

The order, once signed, is contrary to President Joe Biden’s efforts to promote bilingualism and, in some cases, preferred treatment to those still learning English.

Biden’s Department of Education secretary, Miguel Cardona, used his final days in office to push to states and school districts a dual instruction plan by which class time in all subjects would be split between English and a foreign language.

The fact sheet also notes that 180 nations have an official language and that at least 30 U.S. states and five territories have already embraced English as the official language.

“This order celebrates multilingual Americans who have learned English and passed it down while empowering immigrants to achieve the American Dream through a common language,” the fact sheet reads.

Trump is likely to face resistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, which has pushed for more federally funded translation services to assist illegal immigrants, teacher unions, and various other civil rights organizations that have opposed his platform from day one.

The League of United Latin American Citizens, according to its website, monitors any movement toward making English the nation’s official language and calls any English-only provisions “linguistic racism” reflective of earlier laws that promoted discrimination.

“Laws were enacted to prevent Chinese from testifying in court, Japanese from owning land, German from being learned in schools, and Hispanic children from attending integrated schools,” the website says.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 17:20

"Bat Lady" Research Team In Wuhan 'Find' COVID-Like Virus That Can Infect Humans

Authored by Eva Fu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Chinese researchers, led by a virologist whose work had fueled concerns about a possible COVID-19 lab leak, have discovered a new bat coronavirus that is similar to the one that causes COVID-19, and that is capable of infecting humans.

An aerial view of the P4 laboratory (C) on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on May 27, 2020. Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images

The virus, called HKU5-CoV-2, can enter human cells through the ACE2 receptor, the same gateway for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that sparked a global pandemic five years ago, according to a study recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Cell.

The lead researcher is Shi Zhengli, who, for years, led work on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab that has been under scrutiny amid ongoing questions about the origins of COVID-19.

The researchers collected nearly 1,000 anal swabs from pipistrellus bats across five Chinese provinces and took them to the state-owned Wuhan research institute.

The virus belongs to a distinct lineage of coronaviruses that also include the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome virus. Lab experiments indicate this virus strain may infect a wide range of mammals. The HKU5-CoV-2 has the potential to jump from one species to another, researchers said, noting the recent detection of viral sequences closely related to HKU5-CoV in farmed minks.

The virus doesn’t enter human cells as readily as the SARS-CoV-2 virus, suggesting the risk of its “emergence in human populations should not be exaggerated,” the paper states. The researchers also identified antibodies and antiviral drugs that target the virus.

Findings about the virus raised concerns from Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and laboratory director at Rutgers University’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology, who has been critical of the Wuhan Institute’s virus experiments.

“In nature, this virus poses minimal threat to humans,” he told The Epoch Times on Feb. 25.

“However, [with] laboratory enhancement of transmissibility or pathogenicity, this virus could create a highly extremely threatening new bioweapons agent and pandemic pathogen.”

China is currently experiencing a surge of human metapneumovirus cases while the regime continues to resist international probes of the origin of COVID-19.

In January, the CIA became the third U.S. executive agency to back the theory that the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have come from a Chinese lab.

Ebright expressed concern that the newly discovered virus is being reported and researched by Shi, given her past line of research that he described as “reckless.”

Pandemic research nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which has used federal grants to support bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan lab, received an official funding ban in January from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The House Oversight Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic said its investigation found the U.S. group had been facilitating lab experiments in Wuhan that enhance coronavirus features, including through gain of function research.

The Chinese foreign ministry, in a Feb. 12 press conference, denied that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has engaged in gain of function studies of coronavirus.

Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on Feb. 23, 2017. Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images

Shi left her former facility and joined Guangzhou National Laboratory as a researcher in May 2024. The lab was set up in 2021 to focus on significant respiratory diseases and their prevention, according to its website.

The virologist has posted hiring notices for postdoctoral researchers to join her team to study emerging infectious diseases, molecular epidemiology, cross-species viral transmission, and molecular mechanisms of pneumonia from respiratory viral infections.

A dozen researchers from the Wuhan Institute, along with six from her current lab, were coauthors of the February research paper.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was aware of the Cell study but “there is no reason to believe it currently poses a concern to public health.”

“The publication referenced demonstrates that the bat virus can use a human protein to enter cells in the laboratory, but they have not detected infections in humans,” Paul Prince, a spokesperson for the center, told The Epoch Times.

He added that the agency will “continue to monitor viral disease activity and provide important updates to the public.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Shi for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 17:00

'The Dog Ate My Epstein Files...'

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

"It may be time the FBI's New York field office gets paid a visit in the style it's very well accustomed to doling out." 

- Mike Benz

Turns out new Attorney General Pam Bondi was a little off the mark earlier this week when she said the Jeffrey Epstein files were sitting on her desk. Actually, it was a six-hundred-pound tar-smeared hairball with a gift tag that read: “To Pamela Jo from her Friends in Blobville, good luck untangling this!” Well, she did tell Fox News host Jesse Waters that the thing sitting on her desk was “disgusting.”

As promised, those Epstein files were released on Thursday — a measly two-hundred pages — to much chagrin and embarrassment for all, since the material turned out to be the same old lists and flight logs that every blogger and his uncle has already put out on the Web for years — say, what . . .?

But then the plot thickened later in the day when AG Bondi said a whistleblower informed her that the New York office of the FBI and their counterparts in the Southern District of NY (Manhattan) DOJ offices were hiding “thousands and thousands” of pages evidence and other stuff (videos? photos?) they had been sitting on for years.

AG Bondi quickly fired off a letter to brand-new FBI Director Kash Patel demanding that the New York FBI office deliver all that stuff to Washington by eight o’clock in the morning today (Friday). If you were Mr. Patel, rather than waiting until morning, wouldn’t you just take a twilight ride up the Jersey Turnpike from Blobville to the Big Apple with an FBI swat team and bust into both the FBI and DOJ offices there. . . and maybe frog-march a few federal employees onto the street like so many grannies caught praying in front of an abortion mill?

Of course, I am writing this a few hours before the Friday morning deadline. So, for now there are only the ancillary considerations in this fast-developing denouement to the longest and slowest-running case of trans-national fuckery in world history. Some little details do stick in one’s craw. For example, Maurene (spelled that way) Comey, daughter of fired FBI director James Comey has been a lead US attorney out of the SDNY in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the more recent case against Sean (“Diddy”) Combs — both cases revolving around grand-scale sexual depravity among world-class celebrities. Note, too, that the SDNY was the origin point of more recent janky cases brought against Mr. Trump in the 2024 runup to the election.

And, as independent investigator Mike Benz points out, Bill Barr was USAG in 2019 when Jeffrey Epstein was finally busted, stuffed into the Manhattan federal lockup, and promptly (shall we say, conveniently) turned up dead a few days later (putting aside the known irregularities involving the disposal of his body and the pathology reports about the cause-of-death). Did you notice that no one was ever disciplined for that? Not the two guards on the floor that night who claimed they fell asleep. Not the warden of the jail who failed to check whether the security cameras were working (they weren’t) on his most important prisoner’s cell?

Nor did Bill Barr ever answer for that, or for some other capers — such as sitting on Hunter Biden’s laptop in the fall of 2019 when Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee held preliminary hearings to consider impeaching President Donald Trump over his inquiring phone call to V. Zelenskyy in Ukraine. The laptop, you surely know, was stuffed with deal memos and emails about the Biden family’s ex-officio financial shenanigans in Ukraine that surely would have amounted to exculpatory evidence and was withheld from Mr. Trump’s lawyers through the entire psychodrama of the impeachment and trial in the Senate.

Then there is the peculiar history of Bill Barr’s dad, Donald Barr, present at the founding of the CIA (as an OSS officer in WWII), who groomed young Jeffrey Epstein into a job teaching math New York’s Dalton prep school in 1974 on the basis of fake college credentials (Stanford). Epstein was soon transformed into a Wall Street go-getter and most probably an agent for Mossad, Israeli intel. Epstein’s rise in high finance and international spookery led him to crypto-British media mogul and Mossad agent Robert Maxwell and Maxwell’s sex-crazed daughter Ghislaine. . . and the Epstein underage sex operation proceeded from there.

Coincidentally, Donald Barr’s son, Bill Barr’s rise in Blobville neatly parallel’s Epstein’s rise. Barr signed on with the CIA in 1973, worked as an “analyst,” quit to go to law school in 1977, landed in the Reagan White House, than the Bush One White House where he performed clean-up operations on the lingering Iran-Contra mess, eventually becoming US Attorney General in 1991. Between 1994 and 2019, he racked up a personal fortune in blob-centric law, becoming Attorney General a second time in 2019, under Mr. Trump, whom he sedulously stabbed in the back, butt, and liver during his tenure.

Now, it is well-known that Donald Trump consorted with Jeffrey Epstein at various points in his life. Mr. Trump, in his role as New York real estate mogul, was but another celebrity butterfly in Epstein’s vast collection. He admits flying on the notorious Epstein airplane, though, he has said only to catch a ride somewhere. Mr. Trump later clashed with Epstein, as far, even, as blackballing him from the Mar-a-Lago club. (Epstein’s role as a high-toned pimp was becoming known in the early 2000s, though his legal culpability was neatly minimized by Barack Obama’s DOJ.)

In light of all this, it appears that Mr. Trump has no reservations these days about disclosing whatever lurks in the blob files about these skeezy matters. Of course, it is a little hard to believe that blob agents did not dispose of the evidence well in advance of January 20. Other whistleblowers say that FBI agents have been “working night and day” to destroy files on “stand-alone” FBI servers in the days preceding Kash Patel’s arrival on the premises.

As I wind up today’s post at 8:02 in the morning, something new should have landed on Pam Bondi’s desk in place of that six-hundred-pound hairball. Not a whisper of news yet. No perp-walks out of SDNY or the New York FBI office. And, of course, The New York Times, barely a mention on yesterday’s Epstein doings. There’s a long work-day ahead. Stand by.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 16:20

"Thank F**k February's Over!" - Rate-Cut Hopes Jump As Stocks & Crypto Dump

"Thank f**k February's over," was the irreverent message from one trader as he reflected on this month's more technical (less fundamental) driven collapse in everything that was seemingly going to the moon without hesitation.

• The economy - growth expectations stalling

• Inflation - disinflationary path is over

• AI/Meme/Momo/Tech stocks - clubbed like a baby seal as CTA thresholds hit and revenues disappoint

• Crypto - carnage as cash-and-carry trade unwinds

• Bond yields - plunged as growth fears rise

• STIRs - rate-cut hopes soared.

Still, could be worse, you could be President Zelensky!!

And that bust up in The Oval Office sparked some chaotic moves in stocks today... but month-end pension rebalancing lifted stocks to the HoD by today's close...

Even as PolyMarket bettors faded their initial Ukraine war optimism...

But taking a step back, the major issue for the market is more top-down macro than geopolitical. The policy mix is driving the market to price what looks like a growth shock. Tariff headlines yesterday with implementation of Mexico and Canada meant to hit in early March + the suggestion of tariffs on Europe + European autos + increased China tariffs weighed on risk. Whether tariffs are delivered or not they are quite likely impacting confidence/injecting uncertainty and that hurts capex/spending/forward planning.

As Nomura's Charlie McElligott summarized: 

"the Market is coming-around to understand that the early Trump 2.0 policy mix is a Growth DRAG because it HAS TO BE ('Engineering a Mild Recession') in the mind of POTUS and his Administration, in order to achieve the tectonic shift he is seeking...

And that is to rebalance Economic Growth and Labor AWAY FROM dependency upon perpetually higher long-term U.S. Govt spending and hiring-trends, and instead attempt to flatten / bend the trajectory of each back towards the Private-sector, which he can then later stimulate with easier FCI via lower Rates and weaker US Dollar (BUT YOU GOTTA MAKE IT THERE ALIVE FIRST…hence, THE FATTER LEFT TAIL in the meantime)...

...

Dangerously for “market status quo” purposes, and in order to achieve this long-horizon goal of “Re-Privatizing the U.S. Economy,” the theory then becomes that the Administration KNOWS they are gonna have to pump the breaks on the “Perpetual (Money) Machine” of Govt Spending and Employment, which HAS TO crack some eggs (LOL) in an attempt to readjust for the past “Sins of Excess,” particularly via hypothetical Govt Spending cuts and Federal Worker layoffs, along of course with these monster Tariffs (which are WAY over anything we saw in Trump 1.0 - most critically, yesterday’s additional 10% Tariff on all Chinese goods effective March 4th, coming 1 month after his initial 10% tariff increase and raising the cumulative to 20%, as a new round of escalations which hadn’t previously been signaled and taking the estimated average U.S. tariff rate on Chinese goods to approx 33% per Ting Lu) as the blunt-force tools used to reset Global Trade and hit Growth, leading to Disinflationary Impulse which will eventually bring the lower Rates and weaker US Dollar he wants for the Economy in Phase 2...

...

Of course, this theme re. “Growth Scare / Repricing the Left Tail Accident” can of course ALSO overshoot…

...

And there IS a “Put Strike” for Trump with Equities in there somewhere, just not here and not yet, because the threats for tariffs hitting next week then seemingly increases the risk that the following April 2nd reciprocal tariffs will be chunky as well—as such, Vol in SPX today is not really giving back much of anything, despite the Spot rally...

February was a one-way street lower in macro-economic data with almost serial disappointments as DOGE's impact is felt...

Source: Bloomberg

But under the surface, it's even more problematic as growth expectations plunge while inflation keep surprising to the upside...

Source: Bloomberg

But the market is focused on one thing - growth scare - and that smashed STIRs to price in almost 3 cuts now in 2025 (from just 1 cut 10 days ago)...

Source: Bloomberg

All the US Majors are lower in February with Small Caps the biggest loser and Trannies the least ugly horse in the glue factory...

Source: Bloomberg

Year-to-date, the situation turned red...

Source: Bloomberg

CTAs have seen massive De-Grossing during February -- as we went from record highs to max pain in 9 days...

Source: Nomura

All the US Majors broke below critical technical levels...

Of course, the big moves were in the highest beta, momo stocks...

Source: Bloomberg

Retail was wrecked as Meme Stocks suffered their biggest monthly decline since last April...

Source: Bloomberg

The 'Lagnificent 7' basket of stocks plunged in February, down a stunning $2.2 Trillion in market cap from the December highs, testing its 200DMA... This was the second biggest monthly drop in Mag7 market cap ever (April 2022 only one bigger)...

Source: Bloomberg

Treasury yields collapsed over the last two weeks to end dramatically lower (25-30bps) on the month...

Source: Bloomberg

The 2Y Yields plunged back below 4.00%...

Source: Bloomberg

The yield curve re-inverted significantly in Feb, screaming policy error time and/or stagflation...

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar ended the month lower after spiking at the start on tariff tensions. The last few days have seen the dollar rising again on tariff talk...

Source: Bloomberg

Crypto markets were a bloodbath in February (mainly driven by selling pressure in the last few days as the cash-and-carry trade unwound)...

Source: Bloomberg

Evidence of the unwind of basis trade is written all over the ETF outflows...

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin did bounce strongly off its 200DMA today though - is the worst of the unwind over?

Source: Bloomberg

Ether was even worse than bitcoin, dragging the ETH/BTC pair down to new cycle lows...

Source: Bloomberg

Gold managed to hold on to gains in February despite falling for the last few days as broad-based liquidations spread...

Source: Bloomberg

Gold outperformed bitcoin with the precious metal retracing almost all of the post-election relative outperformance of crypto. 1 Bitcoin can now buy ONLY 29 oz of gold (from 40 oz in December)...

Source: Bloomberg

Crude prices were lower on the month but WTI bounced back to $70 today as Ukraine chaos struck...

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, in case you were wondering, this earnings season was the first time in two years that the 'Magnificent 7' stocks did NOT handily beat sales estimates...

Source: Goldman Sachs

This has clearly added to investor angst.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 16:00

Education Dept Launches 'End DEI' Portal For Public Tips About Offending Schools

In the latest manifestation of the Trump administration's earnest campaign against divisive Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs, the Department of Education on Thursday announced the launch of an internet portal that citizens can use to report DEI-driven wrongdoings in publicly funded K-12 schools. The portal's debut comes as school officials across the country are shrugging off a Trump administration deadline to purge their institutions of DEI under threat of losing federal funding. 

The web page, which has already gone live, is open for use by parents, students, teachers, and anyone else who wants to report destructive DEI practices at schools anywhere across the country. "The U.S. Department of Education is committed to ensuring all students have access to meaningful learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination," reads the text atop the portal, which is bluntly named "End DEI."

The department said it will use the reports to identify potential investigation targets, with the threat of a withdrawal of federal funding. The portal asks tipsters to provide their email address, identify the offending school or school district, and use up to 450 words to detail the DEI-flavored wrongdoing. 

President Trump dances with Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice at the group's Aug 2024 convention (Mark Schiefelbein/AP via Education Week)

The End DEI portal is a way of adding teeth to a Feb. 14 Department of Education directive that gave schools two weeks to tear out discriminatory programs -- from hiring practices to segregated graduation ceremonies to indoctrination about "structural racism" -- or face federal enforcement action:    

The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.

“For years, parents have been begging schools to focus on teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education and divisive ideologies—but their concerns have been brushed off, mocked, or shut down entirely,” said Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty in a statement encouraging parents to "share the receipts of the betrayal" that's unfolded in public schools. "This webpage demonstrates that President Trump’s Department of Education is putting power back in the hands of parents," she added.

Others don't share Justice's joy. “This so-called ‘tip line’ is a shameless attempt to silence educators and dismantle programs that ensure every child—no matter their race, gender, or background—has a fair shot at success," said Democratic Rep. Alma Adams, ranking member of the House Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee. 

Activists planted signs denouncing DEI programs at the Shawnee (KS) Mission School District amid a 2023 controversy (via Lawrence Times)

Trump's war on government-facilitated DEI has predictably sparked resistance. Last Friday, US District Judge Adam Abelson, a Biden appointee, issued an injunction blocking the administration from canceling all federal contracts considered DEI-related. In his opinion, Abelson said Trump's order potentially discriminatory, and was worded vaguely to an extent that parties to federal contracts reasonably feared "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."    

Meanwhile, government officials and education associations across the country are advising schools to continue doing business as they like. “There’s nothing to act on until we see the administration or its agencies try to stop something,” American Council on Education president Ted Mitchell told AP. “And then we’ll have the argument.”

Get ready -- the fur's about to fly. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 14:40

Valuations Matter... Eventually

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

One of the most referenced valuation measures is Dr. Robert Shiller’s Cyclically Adjusted Price-Earnings Ratio, known as CAPE. Valuations have always been, and remain, an essential variable in long-term investing returns. Or, as Warren Buffett once quipped:

“Price Is What You Pay. Value Is What You Get.”

One of the hallmarks of very late-stage bull market cycles is the inevitable bashing of long-term valuation metrics. In the late 90s, if you were buying shares of Berkshire Hathaway, it was mocked as “driving Dad’s old Pontiac.” In 2007, valuation metrics were dismissed because the markets were flush with liquidity, low interest rates, and “Subprime was contained.”

Today, we again see repeated arguments about why “this time is different” because of ongoing beliefs that the Fed will bail out markets if something goes wrong. Of course, it is hard to blame investors for feeling this way, as it has repeatedly occurred since the “Financial Crisis.”

There is little argument, and as shown, current trailing valuations are elevated.

However, we need to understand two crucial points about valuations.

1. Valuations are not a catalyst of mean reversions, and;
2. They are a terrible market timing tool.

Furthermore, investors often overlook the most essential aspects of valuations.

1. Valuations are excellent predictors of return on 10 and 20-year periods, and;
2. They are the fuel for mean reverting events.

Critics argue that valuations have been high for quite some time, and a market reversion hasn’t occurred. However, to our point above, valuation models are not “market timing indicators.”  The vast majority of analysts assume that if a measure of valuation (P/E, P/S, P/B, etc.) reaches some specific level, it means that:

1. The market is about to crash, and;
2. Investors should be in 100% cash.

This is incorrect.

Valuations Reflect Sentiment

Valuation measures are just that—a measure of current valuation. Moreover, valuations are a much better measure of “investor psychology” and a manifestation of the “greater fool theory.” This is why a high correlation exists between one-year trailing valuations and consumer confidence in higher stock prices.

What valuations do express should be obvious. If you “overpay” for something today, the future net return will be lower than if you had paid a discount for it.

Cliff Asness of AQR previously discussed this issue:

“Ten-year forward average returns fall nearly monotonically as starting Shiller P/E’s increase. Also, as starting Shiller P/E’s go up, worst cases get worse and best cases get weaker.

If today’s Shiller P/E is 22.2, and your long-term plan calls for a 10% nominal (or with today’s inflation about 7-8% real) return on the stock market, you are basically rooting for the absolute best case in history to play out again, and rooting for something drastically above the average case from these valuations.”

We can prove that by looking at forward 10-year total returns versus various levels of PE ratios historically.

Asness continues:

“It [Shiller’s CAPE] has very limited use for market timing (certainly on its own) and there is still great variability around its predictions over even decades. But, if you don’t lower your expectations when Shiller P/E’s are high without a good reason — and in my view, the critics have not provided a good reason this time around — I think you are making a mistake.”

So, if Shiller’s CAPE predicts long-term return outcomes with a long lag, is there potentially a better measure?

A Fly In The CAPE Ointment

As noted, valuations are a significant predictor of long-term returns. However, investors’ collapsing holding periods of equities have created a mismatch between valuations and expectations. Furthermore, extensive changes in the financial system since 2008 support the argument that using a 10-year average to smooth earnings volatility may be too long. These changes include:

• Beginning in 2009, FASB Rule 157 was “temporarily” repealed to allow banks to “value” illiquid assets, such as real estate or mortgage-backed securities, at levels they felt were more appropriate rather than on the last actual “sale price” of a similar asset. This was done to keep banks solvent as they were forced to write down billions of dollars of assets on their books. This boosted the bank’s profitability and made earnings appear higher than they may have been otherwise. The ‘repeal” of Rule 157 is still in effect today, and the subsequent “mark-to-myth” accounting rule is still inflating earnings.
• Another recent distortion is the heavy use of off-balance sheet vehicles to suppress corporate debt and leverage levels and boost earnings.
• Extensive cost-cutting, productivity enhancements, labor off-shoring, etc., are heavily employed to boost earnings in a relatively weak revenue growth environment.
• A surge in corporate share buybacks to reduce outstanding shares and boost bottom-line earnings per share to support higher asset prices.

The last point is one of the most significant supports of higher valuations in the previous 15 years. As noted in “Earnings Estimates Are Overly Optimistic,” buybacks have contributed to higher earnings per share despite lackluster growth in top-line revenue.

A Look At The Impact Of Buybacks

Since 2009, corporate reported earnings per share have increased by 676%. This is the sharpest post-recession rise in reported EPS in history. However, that sharp increase in earnings did not come from revenue. (Revenue occurs at the top of the income statement.) Revenue from sales of goods and services has only increased by a marginal 129% during the same period. As noted above, 75% of the earnings increase came from buybacks, accounting gimmicks, and cost reductions.

Using share buybacks to improve underlying earnings per share contributes to the distortion of long-term valuation metrics. As the WSJ article stated in a 2012 article:

“If you believe a recent academic study, one out of five [20%] U.S. finance chiefs have been scrambling to fiddle with their companies’ earnings. 

This should not come as a major surprise as it is a rather “open secret.” Companies manipulate bottom line earnings by utilizing “cookie-jar” reserves, heavy use of accruals, and other accounting instruments to either flatter, or depress, earnings.

What is more surprising though is CFOs’ belief that these practices leave a significant mark on companies’ reported profits and losses. When asked about the magnitude of the earnings misrepresentation, the study’s respondents said it was around 10% of earnings per share.“

Unsurprisingly, 93% of the respondents pointed to “influence on stock price” and “outside pressure” as the reasons for manipulating earnings figures. Such “manipulations” also suppress valuations by overstating the “E” in the CAPE ratio.

Another problem is the duration mismatch.

Duration Mismatch

Think about it this way: When constructing a portfolio containing fixed income, one of the most significant risks is a “duration mismatch.”  For example, assume an individual buys a 20-year bond but needs the money in 10 years. Since the purpose of owning a bond is capital preservation and income, the duration mismatch is critical. A capital loss will occur if interest rates rise between the initial purchase and sell date 10 years before maturity.

One could reasonably argue that due to the “speed of movement” in the financial markets, a shortening of business cycles, and increased liquidity, there is a “duration mismatch” between Shiller’s 10-year CAPE and the current financial markets.

The chart below shows the annual P/E ratio versus the inflation-adjusted (real) S&P 500 index.

Importantly, you will notice that during secular bear market periods (shaded areas), the overall trend of P/E ratios is declining.  This “valuation compression” is a function of the overall business cycle as “over-valuation” levels are “mean reverted” over time.  You will also notice that market prices are generally “trending sideways,” with increased volatility during these periods.

Furthermore, valuation swings have vastly increased since the turn of the century, which is one of the primary arguments against Dr. Shiller’s 10-year CAPE ratio.

But is there a better measure?

Introducing The CAPE-5 Ratio

Smoothing earnings volatility is necessary to understand the underlying trend of valuations better. For investors, periods of “valuation expansion” are where the gains in the financial markets have been made over the last 125 years. Conversely, during periods of “valuation compression,” returns are much more muted and volatile.

Therefore, to compensate for the potential “duration mismatch” of a faster-moving market environment, I recalculated the CAPE ratio using a 5-year average, as shown in the chart below.

There is a high correlation between the movements of the CAPE-5 and the S&P 500 index. However, you will notice that before 1950, the movements of valuations were more coincident with the overall index, as price movement was a primary driver of the valuation metric. As earnings growth advanced much more quickly post-1950, price movement became less dominating. Therefore, the CAPE-5 ratio began to lead to overall price changes.

Since 1950, a key “warning” for investors has been a decline in the CAPE-5 ratio, leading to price declines in the overall market. The most recent decline in the CAPE-5 is directly related to the collision of inflation and the contraction in monetary policy due to increased interest rates. However, complacency that “this time is different” will likely be misplaced when the CAPE-5 starts its subsequent reversion.

The Deviation Matters

We can look at the deviation between current valuation levels and the long-term average to better understand where valuations are currently relative to history. It is crucial to understand the importance of deviation. For an “average,” valuations must be above and below that “average” over history. These “averages” provide a gravitational pull on valuations over time, which is why the further the deviation is away from the “average,” the more significant the eventual “mean reversion” will be.

The first chart below is the percentage deviation of the CAPE-5 ratio from its long-term average going back to 1900.

Currently, the 107.01% deviation above the long-term CAPE-5 average of 15.86x earnings puts valuations at levels only witnessed two (2) other times in history. As stated above, while it is hoped “this time will be different,” which were the exact words uttered during the five previous periods, the eventual results were much less optimal.

However, as noted, the changes that occurred post-WWII regarding economic prosperity, operational capacity, and productivity warrant examining only the period from 1944 to the present.

Again, as with the long-term view above, the current deviation is 90.15% above the post-WWII CAPE-5 average of 17.27x earnings. Such a deviation level only occurred twice in the last 80 years: in 1996 and 2021. Again, as with the long-term view above, the resulting “reversion” was not kind to investors.

Conclusion

Is CAPE-5 a better measure than Shiller’s CAPE-10 ratio? Maybe, as it adjusts more quickly to a faster-moving marketplace. 

However, I want to reiterate that neither Shiller’s CAPE-10 ratio nor the modified CAPE-5 ratio were ever meant to be “market timing” indicators.

Since valuations determine forward returns, the sole purpose is to denote periods that carry exceptionally high levels of investment risk and result in abysmal future returns.

Currently, valuation measures clearly warn that future market returns will be substantially lower than they have been over the past 15 years. Therefore, if you are expecting the markets to crank out 12% annualized returns over the next 10 years so that you can meet your retirement goals, it is likely that you will be very disappointed.

*  *  *

For more in-depth analysis and actionable investment strategies, visit RealInvestmentAdvice.com. Stay ahead of the markets with expert insights tailored to help you achieve your financial goals.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 14:20

Hedge Fund Survey Reveals Sentiment Around Bitcoin & Outlook

Bitcoin briefly entered a bear market earlier, tumbling 21% over seven sessions before staging a sharp rebound in early European trading - up 7.5% off its lows of about $78.4k. 

The turnaround was partially fueled by BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, after news hit via Bloomberg that it enabled its entire model portfolio business to allocate funds into the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT).

BLACKROCK ADDS OWN BITCOIN ETF TO MODEL-PORTFOLIO LINEUP

Thank you for your panic sales

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 28, 2025

"We believe Bitcoin has long-term investment merit and can potentially provide unique and additive sources of diversification to portfolios," Michael Gates, lead portfolio manager for BlackRock's Target Allocation ETF model portfolio suite, wrote in investment commentary on Thursday.

The IBIT addition presents a potential new source of demand for the ETF, as Bitcoin trades around the $84k mark at lunchtime.

Goldman Sachs' Blake Germani, Suzanne Dannheim, and Solo Semenyuk provided fresh insights into institutional crypto sentiment in a client note Friday, summarizing key takeaways from the firm's latest digital assets survey for the fourth quarter of top hedge fund managers and asset allocators worldwide:

• 62% trade physical crypto or products linked to crypto (directly or indirectly)

• 65% expect to maintain or increase their crypto holdings within the next 12 months

• 50% believe counterparty risk is the most important aspect when picking a spot cryptocurrency trading counterparty

Here's the survey:

Institutional ownership of digital assets is rising in President Trump's second term. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 14:00

Shut Up And Pay Me

Authored by Mike Solana via PirateWires,

Dad’s home. 

Earlier this week, Amazon founder, part-time rocket man, and fellow billionaire media mogul Jeff Bezos announced The Washington Post’s opinion page was adopting a new philosophy.

Image taken from Shah Mohammed's Medium

Henceforth, he published to X, “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”

From here, he provided quite a bit of context on his thinking:

@JeffBezos

Predictably, reaction from even the center left was immediately hysterical. This was the end of democracy, we were told, and the rise of fascism. No, scratch that. This was actual Nazi shit. Jeff Bezos is an “oligarch,” said Senator Bernie Sanders of a private citizen’s decision not to publish communism in the op-ed section of a newspaper he owns. And then, my personal favorite: Bezos’ pivot to “individual liberties” hits trans women hardest.

But his decision mostly just strikes me as inevitable, and not only because Bezos has previously signaled his displeasure with the overall communist barista disposition of his paper, a once-storied institution disgraced by several years of openly partisan propaganda (an evolution I’ve covered in detail for Pirate Wires). There’s also been something of a media reckoning since Trump’s re-election, in which even overtly left-wing organizations are reexamining their bias. In part, they’ve done so with integrity. There are many journalists who really do want to understand what’s going on, and who really are aware they got the last few years wrong — in everything from their surreal pro-crime positioning to predicting the last election. In large part, however, mainstream outlets are responding to the national backlash against their coverage that’s cost them a significant portion of their audience.

Over the weekend, MSNBC rocked the internet with its decision to shake-up prime-time programming, including the controversial move (according to Rachel Maddow only) to cut Joy Reid, the openly racist psych ward patient and self-proclaimed beneficiary of affirmative action who, more importantly, no longer had much of an audience. The Los Angeles Times began its pivot even before the last election, when it, along with the Washington Post, opted out of a presidential endorsement. And the New York Times continues to successfully enforce the zero-bullshit social media policy it adopted back when it still employed popular performance artist Taylor Lorenz.

Still, in reaction to the Bezos op-ed blitzkrieg, media reaction was not only immense, but almost uniformly self-defensive. The lack of control over a billionaire’s op-ed page was, for some reason, too great a slight to bear. On the more good-natured end of the spectrum, writers tended to simply conflate the op-ed page with reporting, and incorrectly imply that Bezos would be shaping reported news coverage. Then, there were business questions. The New York Times Mike Isaac wondered why Bezos bought the paper in the first place, which I guess is fair enough — though my sense is he probably did it more for the legacy of Watergate than the smooth boomer ramblings of Jennifer Rubin. But over on BlueSky? Our favorite mental patient was working through it.

“I told you all @jeffbezos was feral,” wrote Kara Swisher, who then went on to reference Orwell. “He’s now killed the Graham/Bradlee legacy of justice, the First Amendment and basic humanity in a vomitous spew of nonsense, testosterone fueled (and HGH) double talk that is more than a little pathetic and utterly shameless.” At the time of my writing, she’s posted and reposted 21 times on the subject.

From Unherd, the upstart media outlet “challenging the herd with new and bold thinking,” editor Sohrab Ahmari wrote, “There is a rich irony in an oligarch touting his commitment to freedom in a memo narrowly restricting the range of views available at his paper.”

Mostly, this is how detractors framed Bezos’ decision: an unthinkable, hypocritical violation of free speech from a crowd of businessmen who’ve spent years defending it from, well, the likes of Kara Swisher, who favor draconian political censorship because — and I’m trying to steelman this, I promise — they think it will stop fascism. Which I guess we now have? (It’s hard to keep up.)

There’s a lot we could unpack here, but probably nothing is more important than the outrageous entitlement on display. In the meandering thoughts of the average loser writer, which they for some reason continue to shamelessly post publicly on X and Bluesky, we often encounter the implicit, and sometimes stated belief that their work, composed of their personal opinions, is itself a kind of social good. These people are not just sharing their thoughts on why democracy is actually a coup, or calling out the inherent white supremacy of the latest Traitors episode. They are speaking truth to power in a manner the public should — indeed, must in the case of outlets like NPR — support.

It doesn’t matter that an anti-capitalist writer who thinks the assassin Luigi Mangione “made some good points” works for an outlet owned by some other ostensibly free human being who is (I really must mention!) paying their salary. It doesn’t matter if, in the case of Joy Reid, the American public is totally disinterested in what they’re saying. These people are not only entitled to share their personal opinions from the largest and most influential media platforms in America, their act of sharing is itself an essential public service.

I can’t stress enough how important this is, because you will never understand the media until you comprehend this point: these people not only believe they are right, they believe you should be forced to listen to them speak because they are right. They are professional opinion havers. No mere human plebes, these are doctors for bad ideas (on occasion, they will even rattle off a laundry list of bullshit degrees to prove it). Therefore, any act that inhibits their ability to speak, for whatever reason, is a moral ill, and they tend to assume it’s illegal. I am not being hyperbolic.

Earlier this week, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the Trump administration would be choosing which news outlets are joining the press pool moving forward. It was “a sharp break from a century of tradition,” wrote the AP, “in which a pool of independently chosen news organizations go where the chief executive does and hold him accountable on behalf of regular Americans.” This “neutral” fact gathering organization was not satisfied with a little bit of tough language, however. The AP is presently suing White House officials, including the press secretary, over their first ouster from the briefing room, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The New York Times is not yet litigating (give them a minute), but the sentiment was echoed by Peter Baker, their White House correspondent:

@peterbakernyt

“A president doesn’t pick.” I find this all very confusing. If the president doesn’t pick which reporters are in the press pool — which, by the way, is in his actual house — who does? Who is this “independent group” determining which journalists are invited to the White House? Because I’m a journalist, and I still haven’t received my invitation. Surely, if all journalists enjoy some sort of First Amendment right to ask the president annoying questions in his living room (almost explicitly the AP’s claim), that right extends to your friendly neighborhood Pirate King. Right?

Who the hell makes this decision?

Well, I did a little digging, and as best I can tell both the Times and the AP are referring to the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), an organization of the very journalists who sit in the White House briefing room. Of course, this organization can’t issue badges, as it has no actual power. The Press Secretary has always issued the badges after rubber stamping the WHCA’s “requests” (implicit demands?). But how would you define a scheme like this? Because it’s certainly not democratic, or republican. If you just break it down, what it really looks like is a hereditary aristocracy, in which badges are kept in their respective sacred houses, and passed down from one anointed writer to another. Put a little more simply, the New York Times gets to decide who covers the president, and that group always includes the New York Times.

I guess there are probably decent arguments in favor of a scheme like this. It’s just hard to really identify its potential value following four years of our aristocrats playing block-and-tackle for a left-wing president with, I’m pretty sure, actual dementia. These are really our most deserving arbiters of truth? I mean, you can’t even say they’re popular. It’s the year of our lord 2025. Joe Rogan gets more traffic when he drops a pod about aliens than the Times gets on a typical news day. Which is maybe really why they’re mad. Without a lot of cheating the system, how else will these people find their audience?

I think what we’re looking at here is the end of patronage for the far left. The system was quiet, unofficial, and endlessly wrapped in moralizing bullshit. From Twitter before Musk to every mainstream press outlet in the country, billionaires artificially amplified the views of virulently left-wing writers who, separate from their opinions, also controlled culture. And I imagine for someone like Kara Swisher, who has only ever had her biases confirmed by this system, an absence of privilege is frightening. She must be especially anxious as center right upstarts gain momentum across alternative media platforms — organically. But the people freaking out over the Washington Post doing less antifa shit in their op-ed page are being shortsighted, as are the right wingers celebrating.

It’s obviously true that it’s much more difficult for reflexively left-wing writers to connect with their audience today than it was a decade ago. This is due both to political moderation from the major media companies, and to competition from the alternative press enabled by social media platforms and new tools like Substack. But the very platforms and technologies that grew our current new class of media outlet (yours truly included) are not partisan technologies. Look to the world of streaming, where terrorist-fetishizing Marxists like Hasan are dominant. The truth is, bootstrapping new media companies has never been easier, the left still maintains a near monopoly on writing talent, and the audience for crazy left-wing bullshit, while slightly diminished, is now larger than the ecosystem sustaining it. From where I’m standing, that looks like opportunity for crazy people.

A few years ago, media upstarts tended to code right because everything else was coded left, and the new companies we watched rise up were all servicing an audience ignored by the machine. But if the blue-haired “yay Hamas” girlies are the ones without a home today, might there be room for a communist Pirate Wires? I shudder to think it. But I do think it.

The fragmented media landscape of our future is here, and the next Gawker is coming. So fear not, L-taking MSNBC cat moms, the pendulum is swinging. Now, if you can find it in yourself to stop complaining for a second and start building, it won’t matter what Bezos is doing to the house that built Rubin. And, frankly, I’m looking forward to your (limited) success. The woke whack-a-mole influencers have grown tedious in their victory, and I’m feeling bored without the SSRI-rattled blue checks on X.

See you in the arena.

—SOLANA

Subscribe to PirateWires here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 13:40

Francis Collins Caught Sending False And Misleading Information To Congress

Authored by Paul D. Thacker via The DisInformation Chronicle,

I can’t tell you exactly what is going on, whether politics has so blinded Francis Collins and other researchers to the law, or whether scientists now feel comfortable and relaxed about behaving like criminals and lying to Congress. But something is definitely wrong. When I was a Senate investigator 15 years back, researchers were careful to not lie to Congress.

But since both Tony Fauci and Scripps Kristian Andersen have been caught lying to Congress without facing consequences, this has apparently emboldened Francis Collins to also lie. Collins remains employed at the NIH so I contacted him at his government email, asking him to explain the false information filed with Congress.

Collins did not respond to explain himself.

Collins sent a letter to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic filled with ticky-tacky complaints about their final report that concluded the National Institutes of Health, through Tony Fauci, funded gain-of-function virus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology—the same lab the CIA believes likely started the pandemic.

Filing material misrepresentations with Congress is illegal and actionable under the law so I can’t explain why Collins sent this letter filled with falsehoods. Normally when Congress releases a report people named in that report just hide, hoping nobody notices they were named.

But I’m guessing Collins sees himself as clever and thinks he is creating a paper trail that he can cite as “proof” that Congress is wrong and he was right about several documented mistakes he made handling the pandemic.

Here's how Collins’ lawyers frame the intent of this ridiculous letter they sent to Congress:

We do so to highlight some of the Final Report’s material misrepresentations regarding the public health mitigation strategies employed during the pandemic and its mischaracterizations of Dr. Collins’ actions and motivations during the pandemic.

Sending this letter was ill-advised, because the letter itself contains “material misrepresentations regarding the public health mitigation strategies employed during the pandemic”—the very issue that Collins pretends to address. Tony Fauci actually had two referrals sent to the Justice Department because he got caught lying to Congress.

Here’s the paragraph filled with numerous misleading statements in Collins’ letter:

The Final Report also fly-specks studies to support its broad conclusion that face masks do not work at all to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. See, e.g., Final Report, p. 204. To support this conclusions [sic], the Select Subcommittee’s Final Report relies heavily on a review by the Cochrane Collection, published in January 2023. Despite the authors cautioning that “[t]he high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions,” that is precisely what the Final Report does. The Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, Dr. Karla Sores- Weiser, has herself provided clarifications about that study that correct the types of misinterpretations in the Final Report.4 Specifically, Dr. Soares-Weiser noted that while “[m]any commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’” such statement is “an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.”5 Dr. Sores-Weiser went so far as issuing an apology for the wording of the Report which was “open to misinterpretation.”6 The Final Report compounds this misinterpretation by ignoring the weight of evidence regarding masking. A systematic review of mask-related studies reveals that: (1) more studies determined that masks and mask mandates reduced infection, and (2) wearing masks generally reduced COVID-19 transmission.7

Several false and misleading statements stray from reality. Let’s examine.

COLLINS: ….the Cochrane Collection, published in January 2023. Despite the authors cautioning that “[t]he high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions,” that is precisely what the Final Report does.

REALITY: The Cochrane Review examined whether masks stopped viruses and did conclude that it was difficult to draw “firm conclusions.” But Collins’ inverts the meaning of this finding and deceptively implies this means “go ahead use masks.” This is false and misleading.

Both Kristian Andersen and Tony Fauci were caught lying to Congress--a 1001 violation. Francis Collins joins this esteemed group.

Of course, there's a new administration, @USAEdMartin and they might just prosecute this time. https://t.co/XHmdkO22AQ pic.twitter.com/lbb2Kfaxin

— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) February 27, 2025

For example, if a systematic review finds no “firm conclusions” that a drug stops heart attacks, that finding doesn’t mean “keep giving people the drug.” That finding means “stop giving the drug, because there’s no evidence that the drug stops heart attacks.”

Because every drug has unforeseen side effects, and if it’s not benefitting it could actually be harmful.

This is the same with masks. The Cochrane finding of no “firm conclusions” masks stop viruses means stop using masks to stop viruses. In fact, we know they can be harmful to child development and the CDC concluded years ago that wearing masks can cause harm in other ways.

COLLINS: The Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, Dr. Karla Sores- Weiser, has herself provided clarifications about that study that correct the types of misinterpretations in the Final Report.4 Specifically, Dr. Soares-Weiser noted that while “[m]any commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’” such statement is “an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.”5 Dr. Sores-Weiser went so far as issuing an apology for the wording of the Report which was “open to misinterpretation.”6

REALITY: Again, more misleading statements about Cochrane.

Dr. Karla Soares-Weiser did issue a statement about the Cochrane mask review, but emails show she did this only because she was facing pressure from columnist Zeynep Tufekci, a film studies major now pretending to be a pandemic expert for the New York Times. Furthermore, Soares-Weiser’s statement was also misleading, and this pissed off scientists inside Cochrane.

The editor of the Cochrane mask review even sent an email to Cochrane officials pointing out that the review was scientifically sound and changes that Soares-Weiser suggested were only being considered because of media pressure from people like Tufekci. Here's his email:

Collins also failed to tell the Committee something else about the Cochrane mask review. Earlier this year, Soares-Weiser backtracked, issuing a second statement that confirmed there would be no changes to the mask review.

So why did Collins fail to give a complete and honest explanation of the Cochrane mask review? Why did he mislead the Committee? I can’t answer that. And Collins refuses to explain.

However, Cochrane’s lead author on the mask review sent a letter to the Committee, appraising them of several misleading statements in Collins’ letter and walking them through Collins’ falsehoods. “Therefore, I consider the statement on the public record by lawyers acting on behalf of Dr. Francis S. Collins regarding our Cochrane review is misleading and requires correction,” wrote Dr. Tom Jefferson to the Committee.

I sent Jefferson’s letter to both lawyers at Arnold and Porter —Catherine A. Brandon and John N. Nassikas—asking them about the false and misleading information they had filed with Congress. “As I'm sure you're both aware,” I wrote, “misleading statements are actionable under 1001.”

But neither lawyer responded.

It’s strange that Collins would send a letter to committee filled with lies. And it makes no sense because it doesn’t do anything but create more potential headaches if the Department of Justice decides to take action. But maybe scientists feel so confident after getting away with lies during the pandemic, they now see no other path in front of them that is not littered with other lies as well?

However, Trump officials may feel it’s time to put an end to these lies and start prosecuting people for misleading Congress.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 13:00

Mississippi Judge Orders Newspaper To Remove Editorial Criticizing City Council

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a chilling case of censorship out of Clarksdale, Mississippi, where a court ordered a local newspaper to delete a publication that the city claimed was libelous. 

It is not clear that The Clarksdale Press Register editorial by publisher Floyd Ingram did constitute libel. Ultimately, the city backed down, but the actions of both the local officials and the court remain troubling.

Ingram’s article, “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust,” criticized the mayor and city council of Clarksdale for the lack of public notice before it passed a resolution to establish a 2 percent tax on retailers selling alcohol, tobacco, hemp, and marijuana.

Ironically, Ingram supported the “sin tax” to support “public safety, crime prevention, and continuing economic growth in the city.” 

However, he objected that, before the government “sent [the] resolution to the Mississippi Legislature,” it “fail[ed] to go to the public with details about this idea.” 

He added,  “Maybe [city commissioners] just want a few nights in Jackson to lobby for this idea—at public expense.”

The city went ballistic. 

The city council voted unanimously to sue the Press-Register for libel. Mayor Chuck Espy declared “I would like for the record to reflect, even though I did not vote, I am in full support, and I am fully vested in the decisions that the four commissioners unanimously said.”

Of course, these politicians could set the record straight by simply responding publicly to the allegations. Interestingly, the clerk appeared to confirm that the public notice on the resolution was a snafu. During the litigation, the clerk confirmed that “I customarily e-mail the media any Notice of Special Meeting. However, I inadvertently failed to do so.”

So, the premise of the column was confirmed. While I understand the sensitivity over the suggestion of a desire to travel to Jackson, that line is clearly protected opinion.

On February 13, the city council voted unanimously to sue the Press-Register for libel over its editorial. “I would like for the record to reflect,” added Mayor Chuck Espy, “even though I did not vote, I am in full support, and I am fully vested in the decisions that the four commissioners unanimously said.”

Judge Crystal Wise Martin of the Chancery Court of Hinds County ruled in favor of a temporary restraining order that required the paper to “remove the article…from their online portals and make it inaccessible to the public.”

Epsy celebrated the decision, posting “THANK GOD! The City of Clarksdale WON today! The judge ruled in our favor that a newspaper cannot tell a malicious lie and not be held liable….Thank You, God, for a judicial system.”

The role of the government in bringing a libel action is particularly controversial and chilling. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court observed that “for good reason, ‘no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence.'”

The Court added that such a role “has disquieting implications for criticism of governmental conduct…A State cannot under the First and Fourteenth Amendments award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves ‘actual malice’—that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.”

The actions of both the city council and the court run counter to this precedent, and in my view, they could have been appealed successfully.

H/T: Joe Lancaster

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 11:45

Atlanta Fed Model Suddenly Signals US Recession As Stagflation Takes Hold

A recession is imminent...

The Atlanta Fed's GDPNOW model  - forecasting US economic growth - just downgraded its estimate of Q1 2025 GDP growth (or lack of it) from +2.3% to -1.5%...

After recent releases from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and the US Census Bureau, the nowcast of the contribution of net exports to first-quarter real GDP growth fell from -0.41 percentage points to -3.70 percentage points while the nowcast of first-quarter real personal consumption expenditures growth fell from 2.3 percent to 1.3 percent.

Put a different way, spending less on transsexual Guinea pigs in Bora Bora means US GDP gets hit.

It does make us wonder how a 'model' of economic growth can swing 380bps into contraction from trend growth in a week... but hey, propagandists gonna propaganda.

Who could have seen this coming?

Well we did!

Here's the bigger play at hand, and why there is only token pushback to DOGE.

You cut enough spending - even if it's all grift and fraud - you eventually get a recession, guaranteed. That's all Congress is waiting for cause then they use the "emergency" to vote through a far…

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 8, 2025

And here is Mizuho's Dominic Konstam just yesterday confirming the narrative perfectly...

DoGE-led recession risk?

The market is focused on a negative economic fall out from Federal spending cuts. The level of potential Federal job losses are too small to derail growth but overall government spending has been egregiously high in recent years. There has also been excessive job growth in the “government+” sectors including federal, state and local government and in education and health. If DoGE sets a precedent on jobs and achieves spending cuts that ricochet through the quasi-public sector, it is likely that new economic headwinds will develop.

The Fed is not cutting rates anytime soon but that restrictive policy stance bodes well for inflation containment.  There are clearly still “seasonal” related bumps in inflation but we are a far cry from any trend rise in inflation. We remain confident that the disinflationary process is intact, more so with the Fed on hold.

The real focus is on what kind of “new” economic order is in store for the global economy. We lay out a framework for Trump 2.0 that rests on two key principles: rebalancing trade and lowering rates.  We see a tariff regime with different dollar outcomes as juxtaposed to a more cordial Bretton Woods 2 (BW2)/ Mar-a-Lago accord that overlays new (global) fiscal priorities and includes the debt-for-security swap. We show that market pricing is not too far off assigning a relatively large weight to a tariff outcome with stronger dollar. With growth headwinds the Fed will be able to get-off-pause, easing once disinflation resumes.

The curve has retained much of its steepness despite the belly more recently driving curve direction (bullish flattening/bear steepening 210s). We think the recent flattening “relief” reflects an appropriate repricing against the bear steepening fears initially triggered around Trump 2.0. Our yield curve analysis in the context of likely net supply outcomes and Fed reaction do allow for further curve re-steepening but only bullishly, on a sustained basis. Net supply alone doesn’t (bearishly) steepen the curve much. A proper bear steepening with the Fed priced not to cut much, requires a shift higher in Fed expectations. This in turn would likely need to reflect rising inflation expectations and a Fed unwilling to hike. At least for the Powell Fed this seems unlikely, in our view.

Our preferred view is that we will get more tariffs with a strong dollar. Despite the headline rhetoric, the effective tariff rate is still likely to be diluted (closer to 10 than 30 percent, that’s what reciprocity means!) – the one-off price impact is less than otherwise. With growth headwinds mounting, we think investors should accumulate duration on yield set back with the curve still being pressured flatter. Come q2 we expect this to segue into bullish steepening on resumed disinflation.

February was an absolute shitshow for macro data with inflation surprising to the upside and growth drastically surprising to the downside. Put together, they form the Fed's nemesis - Stagflation!

All of which could be seen as good news for Trump: he can impose tariffs (inflation) AND the Fed will be forced to cut rates (growth).

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/28/2025 - 11:31