21.2 F
Chicago
Wednesday, January 22, 2025
Home Blog Page 11

Lithuania Becomes First NATO Ally To Commit To Trump’s 5% Defense-Spending Goal

0
Lithuania Becomes First NATO Ally To Commit To Trump’s 5% Defense-Spending Goal

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Lithuania has announced plans to boost its defense spending to between 5 percent and 6 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), becoming the first NATO country to make a firm commitment to President-elect Donald Trump’s request that allies spend at least 5 percent of GDP on defense.

The decision, announced on Jan. 17 by top Lithuanian officials, is driven by the Baltic nation’s determination to confront the threat of Russian aggression. Lithuania, which shares a border with Russia and its heavily militarized Kaliningrad exclave, has repeatedly emphasized the need to bolster its defenses.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda told reporters after a Jan. 17 meeting of the State Defense Council in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, that a historic decision has been taken to nearly double the country’s defense spending. Currently, Lithuania spends a little over 3 percent of its GDP on defense.

“The possibility of Russian military aggression is still real, but not imminent,” Nausėda said.

“We need to increase our efforts to strengthen defense and deterrence significantly, devoting more resources to this end.”

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys clarified in a post on X that the country’s commitment to spend between 5 percent and 6 percent of GDP would start in 2026 and continue through 2030.

“Difficult times require bold decisions & leadership,” he wrote.

“We call on our allies to follow this lead. The era of passive ’sit-and-wait’ strategies is over.”

The announcement, which comes days before Trump assumes office, makes Lithuania the first NATO ally to formally commit to the 5 percent of GDP spending target that the president-elect has demanded.

Trump has long criticized NATO members for not meeting the alliance’s 2 percent defense spending target and recently proposed a more ambitious 5 percent goal, saying during a Jan. 7 press conference at Mar-a-Lago that “they can all afford it.”

Poland, the current NATO leader in defense spending, has vocally supported Trump’s 5 percent target. However, Warsaw has framed its 5 percent support as an aspirational goal for all NATO members, suggesting it could take some countries a decade to achieve it. As of now, Poland has not officially declared when it will meet or exceed the 5 percent mark. Poland spent 4.12 percent of GDP in 2024 and projects that will rise to 4.7 percent in 2025.

In backing Trump’s call for the 5 percent target, Polish Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz told the Financial Times in a recent interview: “If we could afford to go into debt to rebuild after Covid, then we must surely find the money to protect ourselves from war.”

Poland, which shares a border with both Ukraine and Russia, has long argued that greater defense spending is needed to deter Russia. Overall, however, European NATO leaders have offered a mixed response to Trump’s demand for a significant defense spending boost. For instance, France is grappling with the challenges of managing a debt burden exceeding 110 percent of GDP, while Germany is constrained by constitutional limits on additional borrowing.

In 2014, NATO set a target that all members should be spending 2 percent of GDP by 2024.

By the end of 2023, 10 of 31 NATO members had reached the 2 percent goal, although projections published in June 2024 suggest that number could rise to 23 out of 32 in 2024, following Sweden’s accession.

When Trump took office in 2016, only five NATO members met the 2 percent minimum defense spending target; by the end of his presidency, that number had increased to nine.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/19/2025 – 08:10

Russian Media Alleges NATO F-16 Pilot Killed In Strike On Ukraine

0
Russian Media Alleges NATO F-16 Pilot Killed In Strike On Ukraine

Russia is claiming that its military has killed a NATO flight instructor who was on the ground in Ukraine advising Ukrainian pilots after they received several rounds of F-16 fighter jets from European countries.

“Danish instructor Jepp Hansen, who was training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16 fighter jets, has allegedly been killed in a Russian missile strike in Ukraine, TASS reported on Saturday,” according to Russia’s English-language media.

Illustrative image via X

Regional reports say that an Iskander missile was launched by Russia on a university building in the city of Krivoy Rog in Dnepropetrovsk Region which was being used by the Ukrainian military.

The Danish government has not commented on the claims, nor is it expected to:

According to Russian media reports, citing a post by Hansen’s friend on social media, the Dane had significant experience in flying F-16 jets and had trained “hundreds of Ukrainians” to operate the planes

Neither Denmark nor the Russian Defense Ministry has officially commented on the reports.

Denmark and the Netherlands have been leading European countries in the F-16 program, having also hosted Ukrainian pilots as they undergo training.

While speculation has abounded over whether or not NATO trainers are actually inside Ukraine, Russia has on several occasions warned that any such Western personnel present in Ukraine are fair game for attack.

In the recent past, Russia has claimed to have taken out French mercenaries in the north. These current Russian media reports mark the first claims of a NATO flight instructor having been killed, and the reports are surprisingly specific, mentioning the allegedly deceased Danish pilot by name.

Some media reports and pundits have gone so far as to suggest that NATO pilots are actually operating Ukraine’s F-16s in Ukraine’s skies in some cases. But this has never been confirmed nor is there evidence of this.

Russia’s military has been searching for base locations in Ukraine where the F-16s are hosted on the ground. Kiev has kept this a carefully guarded secret since receiving the advanced fighters. It could be that some are based in neighboring Poland, and then fly missions in Ukraine.

The US has also been hosting a Ukrainian pilot training program, especially out of San Antonio and Arizona, but has allowed European partners to largely spearhead the bulk of the training, some reports indicate.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/19/2025 – 07:35

The Merits Of A Demilitarized ‘Trans-Dnieper’ Region Controlled By Non-Western Peacekeepers

0
The Merits Of A Demilitarized ‘Trans-Dnieper’ Region Controlled By Non-Western Peacekeepers

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

This proposal is the most realistic means for keeping the peace after an armistice…

Bloomberg cited unnamed “people with knowledge of Kremlin thinking” to report that Russia will only demand that Ukraine restore its constitutional neutrality, “drastically cut back military ties with the NATO alliance”, limit its army, and freeze the front lines, albeit with some territorial swaps. Also, “The Kremlin’s position is that while individual NATO members may continue to send arms to Ukraine under bilateral security agreements, any such weapons should not be used against Russia or to recapture territory.”

To be sure, Bloomberg might have either invented their sources or they’re uninformed of what the Kremlin thinks, but there’s also the possibility that they’re accurately reflecting what it plans to ask for during peace talks. Hopefully Russia’s demands of Ukraine are more than what Bloomberg just reported, however, because the aforesaid requests would be settling for much less than it might otherwise be able to achieve as suggested by some of the proposals made at the end of this analysis here.

For instance, any agreement to limit the Ukrainian Armed Forces is meaningless without a monitoring mission paired with credible enforcement mechanisms to enforce compliance. After all, even written guarantees that individual NATO members won’t arm Ukraine for the purpose of using these weapons against Russia or to recapture territory – not to mention purely verbal ones – could be broken. There’s also the question of how Russia would respond to future drone and missile strikes from Ukraine.

The most realistic way to address these concerns is through the participation of only non-Western countries in monitoring and peacekeeping roles, the latter of which could concern deployment along the entire Russian-Ukrainian border, including the Line of Contact (LOC). About the second-mentioned, the reported territorial swaps could see Russia give back its part of Kharkov Oblast in exchange for Ukraine giving back its part of Kursk Oblast, which each would formally retain their territorial claims to the other.

This would restore the status quo ante bellum along that part of their universally recognized frontier while serving as a legal workaround against their respective constitutional prohibitions on ceding territory, which in Russia’s case is absolute while Ukraine’s requires a national referendum. Accordingly, freezing the LOC through an armistice a la the Korean precedent wouldn’t violate either of their laws, thus retaining Ukraine’s claims to the entirety of its pre-2014 borders and Russia’s to its post-2022 ones.

As for effectively keeping the peace, Russia could be more confidently assured that Ukraine won’t unilaterally violate the armistice with Western encouragement if the proposed non-Western monitoring and peacekeeping contingent is allowed to inspect all trains and cars that cross the Dnieper eastward. Ukraine might undertake a long-term clandestine campaign to rebuild its heavy weaponry presence in proximity to the DMZ ahead of a possible sneak attack so this would be imperative for impeding that.

Likewise, since such equipment could also be smuggled across the river, these forces should also be given the means for patrolling it as well as the right to detain people, seize their contraband, and use lethal force if they come under attack. Kiev should have a special regime since it’s difficult to enforce such checks given the capital’s location on both sides of the river, but one possibility is fencing off its northeastern, eastern, and southeastern reaches beyond the city’s limits and conducting checks there.

The ideal scenario should be to demilitarize everything east of the Dnieper and north of the LOC that remains under Kiev’s formal control, the so-called “Trans-Dnieper” region for lack of a better description, while having its DMZ manned by Russia’s closest non-Western partners. The first part of this suggestion would prevent Ukraine from unilaterally violating the armistice while the second would do the same with regards to Russia since it would be loath to attack Indian and other such friendly peacekeepers.

This proposal takes for granted that NATO will continue expanding its influence in Western Ukraine along that side of the Dnieper, but the river will serve as a major obstacle to on-the-ground offensive action by either party, all while they presumably concentrate air defense systems up and down its banks. It’s unrealistic to expect Russia to plant boots its boots on the NATO-Ukrainian border, monitor everything that crosses, and then hold these positions indefinitely as explained here so this is the next best solution.

In the event that Russia or Ukraine detects illegal military activity by the other in the Trans-Dnieper region such as prohibited arms and special forces, then they should already have a protocol agreed upon as part of their armistice for peacefully addressing this prior to resorting to kinetic action if that fails. This could include a formal complaint with evidence, tasking the non-Western monitoring and peacekeeping mission with investigating, and in the worst-case scenario, drone or missile strikes against those targets.

On-the-ground military activity by either party would be strictly prohibited since that would violate the terms of the armistice and instantly risk another conflict, ergo the purpose of the non-Western monitoring and peacekeeping mission along the DMZ, the Dnieper, and around Eastern Kiev for deterring this. There could also be previously agreed and very severe economic, financial, and other consequences from Western and non-Western countries that would immediately enter into effect if that happens.

Basically, the Trans-Dnieper region would function as a no-man’s land or buffer zone, and the locals who feel uncomfortable living there could either relocate elsewhere in Ukraine such as west of the Dnieper or take advantage of Russia’s simplified procedure from summer 2022 for moving eastward instead. As can be seen, the proposal for a demilitarized Trans-Dnieper region that would be monitored and maintained by non-Western peacekeepers would greatly keep the pace, hence why Russia must demand it.

Any armistice or peace treaty that doesn’t include this outcome risks being unilaterally violated by Ukraine with Western encouragement after some time. Its terms, especially those involving severe multidimensional consequences against whichever party sends ground forces into this zone (though importantly not for carrying out surgical strikes), should also reassure the West that Russia won’t violate this deal either. That’s why the US would do well to seriously consider this proposal if Russia brings it up.

Should Russia settle for less by only demanding what Bloomberg reported, then it would be tacitly requesting nothing more than a temporary lull in hostilities to prepare for the next inevitable phase of the conflict. Officially speaking, Russia remains determined to reach a lasting peace that preferably meets as many of its maximum goals as is realistically possible given the new circumstances in which it now finds itself after over 1,000 days of conflict, so it should be receptive to the Trans-Dnieper proposal.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/19/2025 – 07:00

These Are The 25 Most Affordable Cities In America

0
These Are The 25 Most Affordable Cities In America

Most Americans know living costs vary widely across the country, with the coasts being significantly more expensive than Middle America.

From rent and groceries to gas, the Midwest often stands out for its affordability. But just how far does this pattern extend?

To find out, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao ranked the 25 most affordable cities among America’s 50 largest, based on average monthly household spending on 10 common bills.

Data is sourced from payment platform Doxo’s annual report tracking household expenditure.

America’s Least Expensive City: Detroit

Detroit, still home to America’s big three automakers, is the most affordable large American city.

Households in Detroit spend about $1,600 a month, almost $100 less than second-ranked Cleveland, Ohio. This is also the largest gap between cities on this list.

As previously suspected, America’s most affordable large cities are clustered in the Midwest (particularly around the Great Lakes) and the South.

In fact, only five cities on the entire list are not in one of the two regions. Of them, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ($2,060/month) is the only one that can be considered on the seaboard.

But of course, just dollars spent isn’t everything.

By looking at the share of monthly income put towards these bills, new patterns emerge.

For example, Detroit households spent nearly half of their monthly income on these bills, far more than 25th ranked Fort Worth households (37%).

So which cities spend the most on bills? Check out: America’s Least Affordable Cities Going Into 2025 for a breakdown.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/18/2025 – 23:00

Here’s Why The Stage Has Been Set For War With Iran…

0
Here’s Why The Stage Has Been Set For War With Iran…

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

The stage is set for a major war with Iran. Let’s first go back to what’s happened and potential implications.

Ten days after the attacks of 11 September 2001, former US Army General Wesley Clark revealed a controversial military strategy. In a conversation in the corridors of the Pentagon, Clark learned of a secret plan to “eliminate seven countries in five years.” This 2007 revelation raised many questions about the real motivations of the “War on Terror” and the garbage narrative fed to the world via mainstream media.

Clark reported that the plan was to invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finally, Iran. The surprisingly extensive list raised questions about US intentions and global strategy after the 9/11 attacks.

According to Clark, the decision to attack Iraq was made without clear justification, underlining officials’ inability to deal with the terrorist threat effectively. The conversation that took place between Clark and another senior Pentagon official revealed the uncertainty and confusion within the upper echelons of the military. “Are we going to war with Iraq? Why?,” asked Clark. The answer was puzzling: “I don’t know. I guess they don’t know what else to do.”

This admission highlighted the lack of a coherent strategy and a willingness to use military power to topple governments rather than directly confront the terrorist threat. Clark’s statement emphasized how the “War on Terror” had been executed ineffectively and for political reasons rather than a real need for national security.

The list of target countries seemed aimed at consolidating US political and military influence in strategically important regions rather than eliminating concrete threats. Twenty years after the 9/11 attacks, Clark’s words still resonate as a warning.

Remembering these events is crucial to understanding today’s geopolitical dynamics and the consequences of the decisions made then. The war in Iraq, which began in 2003, was only the first step in a series of military interventions conducted at the behest of Israel, which have had significant repercussions throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Remember General Wesley Clark?

For a reminder, watch this.

In any event, the West is nearly wetting themselves with glee saying that Syria is now “free.” By free, of course, they have this guy.

Jolani, we are told, is the face of freedom. Who is he? Al-Jolani who fought against the US in Iraq before joining Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and later founding the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, earning a $10 million bounty on his head. As the head of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), he oversaw a regime of what the UN classified as “war crimes” in Idlib province.

But fortunately for Western media, they’re mostly talking to a bunch of ignorant peasants who won’t do even a cursory investigation into whether or not they’re being fed porkies or not, so here he is, a reformed, legitimate, moderate leader.

Since the 7 countries in 5 years project is entirely an Israeli-led initiative, it is no surprise to see Israel stampeding into the country bombing the isht out of much of it. The operation to divide Syria up will now commence. My guess is Erdy struck a deal and will get a chunk of the north, and Israel will move forward with the greater Israel project.

Just keep in mind that as we watch this taking place in front of our very eyes, any statements to the facts mentioned will be immediately met with the label of “anti semitism.”

It is the same strategy that has been used to silence truth. The labels of “conspiracy theorist,” “anti vaxxer,” “climate denier,” etc. — all are specifically designed to shut down any debate on the topic at hand while ridiculing those pointing out the obvious. The “anti semitism” label is no different. Expect to see it wielded with greater tyranny over the coming years.

The US and therefore NATO will be brought to the fore in order to fight these wars on behalf of Israel. You didn’t think that Jeffrey Epstein’s hard work for Mossad wouldn’t be put to work, did you?

Which brings me to….

Did Erdy Just Sign His Own Death Warrant?

Erdy has been in power since March 2003. That’s a long time. He’s repeatedly made reference to his vision of restoring Turkey’s influence over former Ottoman territories. This has led to a rebellious (and often ambitious) foreign policy, however he is what I like to call politically promiscuous — he’ll screw anyone.

Before we get into what’s just happened — namely Turkey providing military support for the Jihadists to overthrow Assad — let’s dial back the clock to 2016.

In a CIA-led coup attempt, Erdy found himself in a pickle. He was trapped in his resort in Marmaris, pleading on FaceTime with the citizenry after narrowly escaping assisination. It was reportedly Russian intelligence that saved his skin, notifying him of the incoming threat. Since that event, Russian-Turkish relations have been a lot more positive.

So a couple things happened there. Erdogan had become vehemently anti-Israel, and the coup was a strong message from the West that opposition to Israel would not be tolerated. Secondly, he now owed his life to the Russkies.

The way he’s played it ever since has been with ever increasing trade between the Russians while spewing empty rhetoric about his resistance to Israel, but with no actions taken. For example, despite calling out the genocide in Gaza, he has continued the uninterrupted supply of oil to Israel. Furthermore, he’s continued to undermine the Assad government, which — aside from Iran — has been the most anti-Israel government in the region. This also goes against both Russian and Chinese interests, both of whom have been supporters of Assad. Like I said, politically promiscuous.

So as you can see, it’s complicated. But here’s the thing. When you travel around Turkey, you see that all the major developments are financed by… wait for it, Chinese banks. And much of the infrastructure development is in partnership with or exclusively Russian. Mmmm, tricky!

So why did Erdy collaborate with Israel to take out Assad now? I suspect he’ll walk away with a chunk of northern Syria in a deal already struck. I see Israel taking Western Syria and Turkey taking the Kurdish areas and what it can. Plus, the Americans saying, “Well, we’re here for all the oil, but we’ll give it to Israel.”

The issue is Erdy now has decisively pissed off the Russians for sure as well as the Chinese. And you know what else?

Well, the recent cosying up to Russia and China by the Saudis is likely getting a rethink.

They’ll be correctly thinking, “Hmmm, they’re really trying to grab the whole Near East. Maybe we should be very careful about joining BRICS and threatening to move our assets out of the dollar because we could be next.”

They’re familiar with what happened to the US puppet Saddam Hussein, who was originally installed by the CIA, only to then fall out of favour. They know what happened to him. He developed weapons of mass destruction so well concealed they’ve never to this day been found, and furthermore, 9/11… you know, Al Qaeda was linked to… oh, I dunno. He was a bad man, OK.

The Saudis know that the stories told to the peasants in the West don’t even need to make sense and they will fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

This brings up a point I want to make regarding BRICS. It will shortly dawn on the Chinese in particular and the rest of BRICS that formalising BRICS as an economic alliance will not be tolerated, and if they are to have a multi polar world, then they will be forced to form a military alliance, too. And that means WW3. And yes, I know we are already in it, but it will by necessity go overt.

What else? As is always the case it is worth following the money. Here is the money…

So what we’re likely now to see is the Qatar-Turkey pipeline being pushed. I don’t think it’ll happen for the simple reason that it looks more likely that Syria becomes the next Afghanistan. In other words, a fustercluck. Getting any infrastructure built with dozens of factions of warring tribes will prove costly and ultimately won’t happen — at least not within the next five years or so. This in turn is great news for another country, halfway across the world…

*  *  *

The Western system is undergoing substantial changes, and the signs of moral decay, corruption, and increasing debt are impossible to ignore. With the Great Reset in motion, the United Nations, World Economic Forum, IMF, WHO, World Bank, and Davos man are all promoting a unified agenda that will affect us all. To get ahead of the chaos, download our free PDF report “Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time” by clicking here.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/18/2025 – 22:10

These Are What ‘Experts’ See As The Largest Risks Faced By The World

0
These Are What ‘Experts’ See As The Largest Risks Faced By The World

Over the next 10 years, climate change and its consequences will pose the greatest risk to the world. That’s according to more than 900 global experts from academia, business and politics, who were asked to evaluate 33 global risks over a two-year and a 10-year horizon for the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risks Report.

With inflation having eased in most parts of the world, the experts no longer consider the cost-of-living crisis one of the most pressing issue in the short-term.

Instead, as Statista’s Felix Richter details below, for the second year in a row, misinformation and disinformation is considered the most severe risk over the next two years. Following the “super election year” 2024, misinformation is still considered a major risk, as AI tools have facilitated the creation of false information, be it in the form of text, image or even video. It has the potential to further sow division, resulting in even more polarized societies, which are prone to radicalization and political unrest.

Looking at the 10-year horizon, misinformation is expected to remain a major threat, but the four most severe risks faced by the world are all predicted to be related to climate change over the coming decade.

Climate change is no longer seen as a long-term problem only, however, as this year’s report reveals a growing sense of alarm in the short term as well. Extreme weather events are rated as the second most severe risk for the present and the near future, marking a notable shift from past editions of the report.

The following chart nicely illustrates the difference between what experts consider short-term risks and which challenges will shape the world for years or even decades to come.

Infographic: The Largest Risks Faced by the World | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

In conclusion, the 20th edition of the WEF’s Global Risks Report finds “an increasingly fractured global landscape, where escalating geopolitical, environmental, societal and technological challenges threaten stability and progress.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/18/2025 – 21:35

Pro-Bitcoin Lawmakers Pack Congress But Partisan Gridlock Looms

0
Pro-Bitcoin Lawmakers Pack Congress But Partisan Gridlock Looms

Authored by Aaron Wood via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, the Republican-majority US Congress has been busy appointing pro-crypto lawmakers to key positions in the legislature.

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Artificial Intelligence — part of the Financial Services Committee — is now packed with pro-crypto legislators. 

But in an era of hyper-partisanship in Washington, observers are skeptical whether common-sense legislation for cryptocurrencies can overcome partisan gridlock. 

And while crypto lobbies and political action committees played a crucial role in funding a number of campaigns in 2024, there are other pressing matters facing lawmakers — like the rising cost of living and escalating conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.

Crypto simply may not be at the top of the list of legislative priorities. 

How crypto may get caught in partisan gridlock

The majority of Congressional Republicans have already shown themselves as proponents of a pro-crypto, laissez-faire approach to regulation. The party has taken great pains to contrast itself with the more cautious Democrats, who prioritize investor protections and financial oversight.

Indeed, the Grand Old Party’s official 2024 platform states:

“Republicans will end Democrats’ unlawful and unAmerican Crypto crackdown and oppose the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency. We will defend the right to mine Bitcoin, and ensure every American has the right to self-custody of their Digital Assets, and transact free from Government Surveillance and Control.”

The site DoTheySupportIt (“it” being crypto) tracks various representatives’ stances on crypto. The methodology is rough, but it gives a snapshot of who supports crypto in Washington — and it’s almost all Republicans.

Still, it isn’t as politicized as “wedge” issues like reproductive rights, gun ownership, or LGBTQ+ inclusivity and acceptance. At least not yet.

One reason it isn’t so politicized is the complicated nature of crypto regulation. As noted by Dylan Desjardins, a research associate at George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center, “Grouping voter sentiments into neat categories is further complicated by the complexity of crypto-related issues generally.”

“For example, government propagation of digital currency might be thought of as loosening crypto regulation, but cuts against conservative distrust of government.”

Speaking to Cointelegraph, Representative Tom Emmer — who was recently appointed to the House Digital Assets Subcommittee — disputed the idea that crypto was a partisan issue, noting that a number of House Democrats supported digital-assets-related bill FIT21 last year:

“This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an American issue, and I am confident that we will continue to come together, in a nonpartisan way, to provide the necessary regulatory guardrails to give digital asset entrepreneurs the confidence to innovate and everyday Americans the confidence to engage with this technology.”

Filecoin Foundation chair Marta Belcher would seem to agree, telling Cointelegraph, “Many policymakers on both sides of the aisle support crypto. I don’t think crypto is a partisan issue, just like ‘the internet’ isn’t a partisan issue. I don’t think, in 2025, either party can be ‘anti’ an entire technology if they’re thinking seriously about America’s future.”

However, as Desjardins notes, recent experience shows that formerly uncommon issues like trans rights or “critical race theory” can balloon into major points of contention. Another market crash or FTX-like incident — wherein investors lose billions due to lack of oversight — could change public perceptions around crypto and how it should be regulated.

Is crypto a priority?

The crypto industry in the US collectively spent over $130 million soliciting promises and guarantees from lawmakers — but Washington’s K Street is full of moneyed interest groups, and crypto is still a relative newcomer to the political process.

Speaking to CBS, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the Republican-led Congress’ priorities include tax breaks and to “get the economy humming again.”

Americans for Prosperity, a powerful libertarian conservative think tank affiliated with the Koch brothers, noted legislative priorities like renewing the 2017 Trump-era tax cuts, deregulating restrictions on the energy industry, and ending what it perceives to be wasteful government spending.

Emmer, who refers to Trump as the “first crypto president,” says crypto fits into Trump’s broader efforts to stimulate the economy. “We advocate for policies that empower everyday Americans to control their financial futures. By providing clear guidance for crypto businesses, we ensure everyone can confidently engage with this revolutionary technology.”

According to Emmer, Congress’ first priorities vis-a-vis crypto are to “focus on passing comprehensive market structure and stablecoin legislation.”

Indeed, stablecoins could be an easy win for representatives who took money from crypto lobbies. There is more bipartisan support for stablecoin legislation in Congress.

In recent years, Representative Patrick McHenry introduced the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act of 2023, while Wyoming Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis and New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand submitted the Lummis-Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act. 

Miller Whitehouse-Levine, CEO of decentralized finance research and advocacy group DeFi Education Fund, told Bloomberg there’s a “broad consensus” regarding stablecoin regulation.

“The McHenry bill that was marked-up in mid-2023 has been well-socialized and was negotiated with [Democratic Representative Maxine] Waters. I think that anything that passes will look largely similar to that bill.”

What can the crypto industry expect from Congress? 

If Congress is known for anything, expediency is not it. Even if crypto is high on representatives’ docket, the wheels of legislation move slowly. Various rewritings and drafts must pass through committees before they can even reach a vote — let alone the president’s desk. 

Major changes pushed by the crypto industry could still take a long time and may not look exactly as proponents expect.

Belcher said that “crypto market structure legislation is likely to move relatively fast this year — or, fast for Congress.” 

Crypto lobbyists’ more ambitious plans, like the Bitcoin reserve bill, may have less of a chance. Castle Island Ventures founding partner Nic Carter said in a recent interview with Bloomberg that he thought it was a long shot, as support in Congress for a Bitcoin reserve is tepid. 

Dave Grimaldi, executive vice president of government relations at Blockchain Association, said that electoral calculus could affect how quickly crypto legislation moves forward. Firstly, he argued that pro-crypto Republicans will likely show some bipartisanship in passing new regulations before the mid-terms in 2026, when the majority could change.

Secondly, he noted the influence of the crypto lobby and the crypto as a voter issue:

“Members of Congress have seen that it is a good and fortuitous thing for them to be on the open-minded side of this industry rather than against it.”

“There are […] pro-crypto candidates who won and were funded by our industry and had votes coming to them from crypto users in their district. […] And then there were also incumbent, sitting members of Congress who lost their seats because they were so negative for completely unnecessary and illogical reasons.”

Crypto industry lobby Fairshake is already raising money for the mid-term elections in 2026, so anyone in a vulnerable district — i.e., anyone looking at a competitive race in 2026 — can’t afford to be seen as anti-crypto.

For crypto, the dust of the crypto landscape in Washington hasn’t settled. Certain elements of the industry enjoy tentative bipartisan support, but there is still potential for crypto to turn into a political football. 

Much will depend on whether the industry gets the guardrails it believes it deserves, which — if you’re counting on Congress — could take a very long time. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/18/2025 – 21:00

US Suspends EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak After COVID-19 Evidence Uncovered By House Committee

0
US Suspends EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak After COVID-19 Evidence Uncovered By House Committee

EcoHealth Alliance, the nonprofit that Dr. Anthony Fauci used to offshore risky gain-of-function research 6 months before the Obama administration banned it, has finally been cut off by the US Government – along with its former president, Peter Daszak, for a period of five years following scrutiny over its work in Wuhan, China ahead of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Peter Daszak toasts with Wuhan Institute of Virology ‘bat lady’ Shi Zhengli

The decision by the Department of Health and Human Services was based on findings by the House Oversight Committee, which announced on Friday that EcoHealth and Daszak had been disbarred.

Justice for the American people was served today,” said Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) in a statement. “Bad actor EcoHealth Alliance and its corrupt former President, Dr. Peter Daszak, were formally debarred by HHS for using taxpayer funds to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in China. Today’s decision is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide.”

EcoHealth funding had been suspended in May by HHS, which recommended a permanent ban on funding the nonprofit.

Given that a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely origin of COVID-19, EcoHealth and its former President should never again receive a single cent from the U.S. taxpayer,” Comer continued.

As journalist Paul Thacker noted in June, the NIH lied about EcoHealth’s gain-of-function research, feeding lies to reporters, while lying to Congress. Meanwhile, former NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci ‘prompted’ the fabrication of a paper by a cadre of scientists aimed at disproving the Covid-19 lab-leak theory.

According to US Right to Know, emails obtained in 2020 revealed that a statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The emails obtained via public records requests show that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet statement, and that he intended it to “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person” but rather to be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists”.

To review;

The US was doing risky gain-of-function research on US soil until 2014, when the Obama administration banned it. Four months before the ban, Dr. Fauci offshored it to Wuhan, China through New York nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance.

After Sars-CoV-2 broke out down the street from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Fauci engaged in a massive campaign to deny the possibility of a lab-leak from the lab he funded, and instead pin the blame on a yet-to-be discovered zoonotic intermediary species.

And if you’d like to dig even deeper, this is perhaps the best, most comprehensive summary of the “proximal origin” timeline.

Further reading:

 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/18/2025 – 20:25

Rental Price-Gouging & Scamming Fueling The Flames For California Wildfire Victims

0
Rental Price-Gouging & Scamming Fueling The Flames For California Wildfire Victims

Authored by Mary Prenon via The Epoch Times,

Ever since the deadly California wildfires began, Lauren Ravitz has often been jolted out of bed at 6 a.m. by phone calls from homeless fire victims desperately seeking a place to live. A realtor with Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Global Network in Los Angeles, Ravitz, has also been receiving up to 100 emails or texts daily.

“It’s a dire situation here, and it’s devastating for those who have lost everything—they’re all scrambling to find a place to rent,” Ravitz told The Epoch Times.

“Many have temporarily moved into hotels, some are living in Airbnb’s, and others are sleeping on friend’s sofas.”

To make matters even worse, some wildfire victims, according to Ravitz, have also experienced rental price gouging, despite California Penal Code section 396, which limits rent increases to 10 percent above pre-emergency levels during a state of emergency. That law applies to both existing rentals and new leases.

“Some people were so desperate to find housing that they paid the inflated rates, but now others are starting to realize this and report it,” said Ravitz.

The law states that violators can face up to $10,000 in fines and up to one year in jail. The City of Los Angeles has a separate penalty for landlords who price gauge, increasing fines to up to $30,000.

In addition, scammers have started to pop up, offering bogus properties for rent and then asking potential renters to wire them a deposit in order to hold the rental.

“People are so overwhelmed and in such a frenzy that they often send the money, only to discover that the properties don’t even exist,” Ravitz said.

In the meantime, the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs is asking residents to report price gouging and other scams to their department.

With the wildfires still uncontained, former homeowners whose properties have now been reduced to rubble are faced with the decision to either rebuild, sell the land and move to another area, or leave the state altogether.

To date, several of Ravitz’s clients have already reached out to architects and builders in hopes of returning to newly constructed homes by next year. Others are moving to nearby Manhattan Beach, where local schools are readily accepting more student enrollments.

“So many people are going through so much in addition to trying to cope with their financial losses,” she said.

“I have one client who’s starting chemo and another dealing with Parkinson’s disease. I just want to cry every day.”

Anne Russell, president of the Greater Los Angeles Association of Realtors (GLAR), has already experienced being evacuated from her home but was fortunate enough to be able to return the following day. Her office in Los Angeles is also safe for the time being.

Russell told The Epoch Times that rent gouging is not uncommon, despite the law prohibiting it.

“I’ve told all of our 13,500 realtor members to be aware of this and to share it with their clients,” she said.

“Hundreds of people are now vying for rentals, and most in the area have been taken up. Many seem to be flocking to Santa Monica now, because local hotels can be very expensive.”

GLAR’s website is also cautioning local residents about additional scams involving text messages that pretend to assist people but are in fact phishing scams trying to extract personal information or ask for payments for fake charities.

“Please do not click on links from phone numbers you do not recognize,” the website warns.

Russell considers herself fortunate to have been spared so far from the raging fires.

“My previous office in Pacific Palisade is gone, and I have many friends there who have lost everything,” she said.

While six regional fires have been contained, four continue to burn in the Los Angeles area, including Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, and Auto. The blazes have destroyed thousands of acres and claimed at least 27 lives.

“We have wildfires here all the time, but it’s never happened that we have so many huge fires burning simultaneously,” Russell said.

“Add to that our very little rainfall, the strong Santa Ana winds, and an empty Palisades reservoir due to repairs and you have a recipe for disaster.”

GLAR meanwhile has been working with local agencies to provide gift cards for people to buy groceries, clothing, and other necessities. Both the California Association of Realtors Disaster Relief Fund and the National Association of Realtors’ Realtor Relief Fund are standing ready to assist with recovery efforts.

As for the real estate market in the regions affected, Russell noted that those with insurance and financial stability will rebuild.

“The most important thing is for them to choose architects and contractors who have had experience working with insurance claims,” she said.

Prior to the wildfires, the regional inventory had started to climb slightly, but now with all of the losses, housing will again be scarce.

“We believe it’s critical that homes are built again, but that they be built better with special fire retardant materials,” Russell said. “Still it’s going to be a real insurance battle for fire coverage.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/18/2025 – 19:50

Large-Scale Deportations To Begin Tuesday With Chicago Raid

0
Large-Scale Deportations To Begin Tuesday With Chicago Raid

Just one day after President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated for the second time, the new administration will kick off large-scale deportations, starting with a massive raid in Chicago, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing four anonymous individuals ‘familiar with the planning.’

The raid, expected to begin on Tuesday morning, will involve 100-200 officers from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (and is of course being reported in the WSJ so the migrants have ample warning to relocate).

As the Journal notes further, the Trump administration will target illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds first. Many of them had offenses ‘too minor’ for the Biden administration to pursue, however if any illegals are present during a raid or an arrest, regardless of criminal history, they will be taken and deported as well.

The transition team had been contemplating cities to target in a day-one operation as a way of making an example of so-called sanctuary cities, which adopt policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. They settled on Chicago both because of the large number of immigrants who could be possible targets and because of the Trump team’s high-profile feud with the city’s Democratic Mayor Brandon Johnson.

Though it isn’t clear how many people the operation will actually target, Trump’s team is planning to work with several right-leaning media outlets to amplify its efforts. -WSJ

Incoming border czar Tom Homan teased the raid last month during a visit to Chicago.

“We’re going to start right here in Chicago, Illinois,” he said at a holiday party on Chicago’ North Side. “And if the Chicago mayor doesn’t want to help, he can step aside. But if he impedes us, if he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien, I will prosecute him.

Tom Homan

In response, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) said “I’m going to make sure to follow the law. I’m concerned that the Trump administration and his lackeys aren’t going to follow the law.”

‘Sanctuary Cities’ In The Crosshairs

In addition to Chicago, large immigrant centers such as New York, Los Angeles, Denver and Miami are looking at raids of their own. To carry out these actions, the Trump administration is weighing a broad mix of changes that would give sheriffs more power – and reward jurisdictions that cooperate, while financially punishing those which don’t. Homan has already threatened to throw the mayor of Denver in jail.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has already said they wouldn’t help, saying in a statement that local officials banned cooperation with ICE in 2020, and that “We are here to protect the communities we serve, not to enforce immigration laws.”

Which means they can say goodbye to potentially billions of dollars in federal grants.

Migrant rights groups are freaking out, meanwhile.

“If the intent is to instill a sense of terror and persecution, that’s what the Trump administration is doing very well,” said Jorge-Mario Cabrera, spokesman for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, which says it has conducted over 140 workshops since the election to teach illegals how to avoid, and resist, the incoming Trump administration.

Under the Biden administration an official 10 million migrants have entered the US illegally – however unofficial figures peg the number north of 20 million.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/18/2025 – 19:15