By Stuart Chirls of FreightWaves

Yemen’s Houthi rebels said they will cease attacks on Israel and on merchant shipping in the Red Sea as a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect Sunday.

“If Israel stops the aggression in Gaza, and if the U.S., UK and Israel stop the aggression against Yemen, the Houthis will stop their operations, including attacks against navies and commercial ships,” Houthi spokesperson Mohammed al-Bukhaiti told Arab news service Al Jazeera on Saturday.

The ceasefire began over the weekend with an exchange of Israeli hostages from Gaza and Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Later phases will include the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza.

Ocean lines have said they are watching developments in the Red Sea but have offered no timeline to resume regular schedules there. Among major lines, only CMA CGM has maintained a schedule on the Suez Canal route.

“The situation in the Suez Canal remains fluid and the security situation is unclear,” said MSC, in an email to FreightWaves. “In order to guarantee the safety of our seafarers and to ensure consistency and predictability of service for our customers, MSC will continue to transit via the Cape of Good Hope [around Africa] until further notice”

The diversions away from the Red Sea absorbed capacity and pushed up rates to cover higher operating expenses for voyages as much as two weeks longer than normal. That’s been a boon for carriers who saw profits swell by billions of dollars in late 2024.

But a confluence of factors could moderate prices with negotiations on 2025 ocean rates well underway: a return to less costly sailings on the Suez route; a slack shipping season ahead of Lunar New Year; and the deployment of new ships expected to begin in February, when reorganized carrier alliances and vessel-sharing agreements go into effect.

The Iran-backed Houthis, a rebel militia that controls about 40% of Yemen, began attacking merchant ships they claim were linked to Israel and Israel-supporting countries in the Red Sea-Suez Canal route shortly after the terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel on Oct. 6, 2023. The attacks have reshaped the global supply chain as major container and crude oil tanker lines connecting Asia, Europe, the Mediterranean and United States have diverted away from the region and on longer voyages around the Horn of Africa.

A multinational force of American and European Union navies has taken up patrols of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, escorting vessels and turning back Houthi strikes.

Two merchant seamen have been killed in the Houthi attacks, and two vessels and their crew remain captive, in Yemen and Iran.

At the same time, U.S. and U.K. forces have continued to carry out strikes on Houthi targets inside Yemen. Attacks against shipping have declined in recent months as the Houthis shifted to more direct attacks on Israel.

Authored by Rachel Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Family members of those harmed by vaccines told the UK Covid-19 Inquiry they were forced to form their own support systems after being ignored by the authorities and made to feel like “an uncomfortable truth” of the rollout.

Kate Scott, speaking on behalf of the group Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK (VIBUK), said they felt they were “almost being pushed into the shadows” as the overwhelming official message continued to be that the jabs were ”safe and effective” in spite of their experience.

Last week’s hearing also heard from a victims’ group in Scotland which raised concerns that the vaccine had been rolled out at such speed that public safety had been sacrifice

Module 4 of the long-running inquiry, chaired by Baroness Heather Hallett, is examining issues relating to the development of COVID-19 vaccines and other drugs.

Scott, whose husband Jamie was left severely disabled by the vaccine, said:

“We are an uncomfortable truth, but we are a truth, and the truth is for everyone in our group, the vaccine caused serious harm and death.”

Jamie Scott spent over a month in a coma after suffering the life-threatening side effect known as vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after taking the now withdrawn AstraZeneca jab.

He survived but with a serious brain injury which has left him unable to work, partially blind, and unable to live independently, while his wife also had to give up her job to help care for him.

‘Too Little, Too Late’

He received the maximum payout of £120,000 from the government’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) which is given to those who are assessed as being left 60 percent disabled as a result of a vaccine.

The inquiry will consider whether the VDPS should be reformed after some vaccine-injured people were left without the payment because they were assessed as not being severely disabled enough, even when left with life-changing health problems.

Kate Scott said, “The scheme is inadequate, insufficient, and offers too little too late and to too few.”

She told the hearing that victims of vaccine damage were made to feel that were “the only ones, or the unlucky ones, and just get on with it, and that’s impossible when you’re grieving a loved one, or your husband is in intensive care.”

A Freedom of Information request made by VIBUK showed that, as of November 2024, victims or their family members have made 17,519 claims to the scheme.

Of these, just 194 have so far been told that they are entitled to the payment, while 1,027 people have had to wait more than 12 months to hear if their claim was successful, and 126 people are still waiting for a decision more than three years after submitting their claim.

Inquiry chair, Baroness Heather Hallett arrives at the UK Covid-19 Inquiry at Dorland House in London, during its first investigation (Module 1), on July 12, 2023. PA

‘Traumatic Process’

Ruth O’Rafferty, from the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group, said the VDPS application process was “traumatic” for all those who went through it, with some members having to move house or use food banks because of the waiting time or the refusal.

“A lot of us are neurologically impacted, so we find it difficult to communicate. Some are so severely injured that they can’t actually write,” she said.

O’Rafferty, who suffered a brain injury following the jab, told the inquiry that many of the 750 members of her group have said there was no informed consent before they or their family members took the vaccines.

“A lot of our members were not given a leaflet until after they had the vaccine, which means they didn’t really … know what they were consenting to, and we now know the level of damage and breadth of injury that can result and even [some types] not listed in the leaflet.”

She added that the support groups are aware of a greater variety of injuries caused by the jabs than those acknowledged by official sources, such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which administers the Yellow Card reporting scheme, or the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA), which is responsible for the Green Book of immunisation information for health professionals.

“We feel that the Yellow Card [system] is not fit for purpose,” O’Rafferty said, because too many people were not aware of it, and often doctors were not reporting vaccine side-effects and injuries to it because the Green Book did not recognise a particular condition as being caused by a jab.

“The Green Book only mentions myocarditis, thrombosis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, really,” she said.

Kate Scott said that in terms of pharmacovigilence, she wants to see it become mandatory for medical staff to ask if those rushed to A&E have recently been vaccinated in case it is a factor in their condition.

She added that if the vaccine-injured and bereaved had been allowed to share their stories with the media or online without censorship, lives could have been saved as some people might have been aware of the side-effects and sought medical treatment more quickly.

Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock during a visit to an NHS vaccine centre in January 2021. Dominic Lipinski/PA

Censorship

“You were not allowed to even suggest that vaccines cause injury or bereavement … posts were removed online of death certificates,” she said, because social media giants were labelling these posts as “misinformation.”

The hearing was also shown a 15-minute video of people sharing a variety of experiences around vaccination, including those who welcomed the jabs as the only way they felt life could return to “normal,” and from COVID-19-bereaved people who felt earlier access to the jabs might have saved their loved ones.

Counsel for the UKHSA told the inquiry that the vaccines had prevented over 100,000 deaths in the UK alone, while former Health Secretary Matt Hancock said it was only through the rollout of the jabs that the country had been released from lockdown.

Hancock praised those involved in the vaccine rollout, saying:

“The question …  is whether it is net positive in terms of taking it,” adding that, “The vaccines were valid and safe and saved lives.”

The former health secretary, who stood down as an MP at the last general election, told the inquiry that he “of course” accepted there had been serious side-effects and deaths, and that the systems for flagging up complications were imperfect.

“We came to see the pharmacovigilence systems as effectively like a Phase 4 trial,” he said, when questioned by Anna Morris, KC, acting for the vaccine injured and bereaved.

The fourth module of the inquiry is set to run until the end of January.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Trump said a few words about Russia shortly after his reinauguration while signing Executive Orders in the Oval Office.

They’re important to interpret since they might hint at his peace plan, which he’s yet to officially reveal, but reports have circulated claiming that he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” through more sanctions against Russia and armed aid to Ukraine if Putin rejects whatever deal he offers.

He’ll likewise allegedly cut Ukraine off if Zelensky rejects the same deal. 

Here’s what he said on Monday afternoon:

“Zelenskyy told me he wants to make a deal, I don’t know if Putin does … He might not. I think he should make a deal. I think he’s destroying Russia by not making a deal. I think, Russia is kinda in big trouble. You take a look at their economy, you take a look at their inflation in Russia. I got along with [Putin] great, I would hope he wants to make a deal.

He’s grinding it out. Most people thought it would last about one week and now you’re into three years. It is not making him look good. We have numbers that almost a million Russian soldiers have been killed. About 700,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed. Russia’s bigger, they have more soldiers to lose but that’s no way to run a country.”

Starting from the beginning, his claim that Zelensky “wants to make a deal” coupled with his uncertainty about Putin’s willingness might be meant to portray the latter as an obstacle to peace, thus possibly setting the stage for the previously mentioned punitive measures.

As for his opinion that Putin is “destroying Russia”, that’s hyperbole but frames his counterpart as the weaker of the two, especially when contrasted with Trump’s declaration earlier that day about the start of an American Golden Age.

He then elaborated by pointing to Russia’s inflation rate, which is implied to be the result of the West’s unprecedented sanctions and correspondingly hinting at the possibility of some relief in exchange for Putin agreeing to compromise instead of continuing to pursue his maximum goals.

Building upon that, citing Ukraine’s grossly inflated estimate of Russian losses might belie ignorance of the facts if he truly believes their numbers, but it could also reaffirm his expectation that Putin must compromise.

To explain, Trump seems to believe that Western sanctions’ effect on the Russian economy and the battlefield losses that Russia has suffered (both of which are exaggerated in the context that he referred to them) justify proposing compromises from Putin, not giving into his demands. For this reason, it’s likely that the earlier reports about him planning to propose something less than what his counterpart signaled would be acceptable are true, after which he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” if it’s rejected.

Observers can only speculate about the substance of his envisaged proposal, but it might look something like what was suggested at the end of this analysis here, particularly with regards to the proverbial carrots that Trump might offer Putin with regard to Ukraine’s neutrality and phased sanctions relief.

As for the compromises that might be requested of Russia, these could include freezing the Line of Contact while being asked to accept only the partial demilitarization of Ukraine and practically no denazification.

Trump’s known for his capriciousness, however, so it might be that he either didn’t mean to hint at anything at all in his latest remarks about Russia or he might unexpectedly change his mind about the compromises that he considers to be acceptable for each party during his upcoming call with Putin.

Nobody can therefore say with certainty what he had in mind, let alone what he’ll ultimately do, but this analysis is premised on the assumption that he might have even subconsciously let part of his plan slip.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

World War 3 is already well underway, even though most don’t recognize it…

Russia, China, and their allies want to transform the current US-led world order that has been in place since the end of WW2 from unipolar to multipolar—giving themselves a bigger seat at the table in the process.

The US and its allies want the unipolar status quo to prevail.

WW3 is unlikely to evolve into a direct kinetic war between the US, Russia, and China because that could invite nuclear Armageddon, where everyone loses.

Instead, WW3 is playing out on different levels—proxy wars, economic wars, financial wars, cyber wars, biological wars, deniable sabotage, and information wars.

This is World War 3. It’s happening right now and rapidly escalating.

2025 could be the year it all comes to a head.

As I see it, World War 3 is a conflict between two geopolitical blocks.

The first block consists of the US and its allies who have hitched their wagons to the unipolar world order.

I’m reluctant to call this block “the West” because the people who control it have values antithetical to Western Civilization.

A more fitting label would be NATO & Friends.

The other block comprises Russia, China, Iran, and other countries favorable to a multipolar world order.

Let’s call them the BRICS+, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and other interested countries.

BRICS+ is not a perfect label, but it’s a decent representation of the countries favorable to the multipolar world order.

Some countries don’t fall decisively into one category. I’ve put these countries in a separate Non-Aligned category. They are prime arenas of competition for NATO & Friends and BRICS+.

Below is an approximate map of the geopolitical chessboard as I see it. Click the image to enlarge.

I believe proxy warfare will likely determine who wins World War 3 and gets to shape the new world order.

Proxy wars are a method by which major powers fight their battles indirectly, using smaller nations or groups as stand-ins rather than confronting each other directly.

Major powers support, equip, and finance smaller groups or nations in a proxy war to fight against a common adversary. This support can include military training, weapons, funding, and other resources. The critical point is that the major powers do not engage directly in combat.

There are numerous ongoing proxy wars in World War 3.

However, the ones I believe will prove decisive will be in Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East. The other proxy wars are peripheral in comparison.

Unlike in Europe (Russia) or East Asia (China), there is no sophisticated nuclear power to deter NATO & Friends from more aggressive military action in the Middle East. Iran is, therefore, the weak link in the BRICS+ alliance to push for a multipolar world order.

That’s why I expect NATO & Friends will make their last stand to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order and preserve the US-led world order in the Middle East.

The Middle East is roughly divided into two different geopolitical groups.

The first is the US and its allies—Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and others.

(Though Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are members of BRICS+, their true allegiance is with the agenda of NATO & Friends).

The second group consists of Iran and its allies—the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, several Palestinian groups (including Hamas), and an assortment of militias in Iraq.

Iran is a key member of BRICS+ and a proponent of a multipolar world order. That’s why Russia and China stand behind Iran with economic, political, and military support.

In early 2024, the geopolitical momentum in the Middle East appeared to be with Iran and its allies.

However, that all changed recently as the Middle East has undergone its most significant geopolitical transformation in generations.

It culminated with militants supported by Turkey, Israel, and the US overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria. It dealt a severe blow to Iran and its allies and, by extension, the multipolar agenda of BRICS+.

Previously, it seemed Turkey was moving closer to BRICS+. However, after recent events, it’s now unambiguous. After delivering the biggest geopolitical win for NATO & Friends in decades, there’s little doubt Turkey is fully onboard with their agenda.

Turkey has emerged as the dominant power and kingmaker in Syria, extending NATO & Friends’ influence into new strategic territory in the heart of the Middle East.

Turkey’s ambitions likely extend well beyond Syria. Erdogan has made no secret of his intention to create a Neo-Ottoman Empire. He now has a golden opportunity to make this a reality with the help of NATO & Friends.

Turkey’s conquest of Syria is not without immense challenges. The country remains fractured and unstable.

Armed Kurdish forces, avowed foes of Turkey, control about a third of Syria.

Assad loyalists are concentrated in the coastal region and other parts of the country. They remain heavily armed and hostile to the new Syrian authorities.

There are ISIS remnants that haven’t submitted to the new government either.

Then there is the Israeli military, which has destroyed all of Syria’s previously formidable air defense systems. The Israeli Air Force now has free reign over the skies of Syria. Israeli tanks and soldiers have occupied new strategic parts of the country.

In short, the new Syrian authorities have a gigantic mess to deal with. They do not have a monopoly on the use of force within Syria’s borders, and it’s unlikely they’ll be able to achieve that anytime soon.

That’s why Syria could easily continue being a geopolitical black hole, sucking in blood and treasury from anyone who tries to stabilize a situation that cannot be stabilized.

Presuming Syria can be stabilized—which is a big if—who will pay for the hundreds of billions required for the country’s reconstruction after more than 14 years of war?

Nobody knows.

Turkey and, by extension, NATO & Friends were popping champagne over Assad’s ouster. But the celebration may end soon as they realize they have bit off more than they can chew.

Turkey, the US, and Israel will be responsible for the chaos that comes out of Syria, which is likely to balkanize with unpredictable results.

In any case, I have little doubt that NATO & Friends will try to use growing Turkish influence as a way to reshape the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East in their favor as the arbitrary lines (imposed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement of a century ago) that define most modern Middle East nation states collapse.

In other words, NATO & Friends want an incipient Neo-Ottoman Empire to be the dominant power in the Middle East. BRICS+ wants Iran to be the dominant regional power.

Nobody knows who will prevail in the Middle East and, by extension, WW3.

The situation is fluid, volatile, and uncertain.

There is an excellent chance that NATO & Friends will lose in Ukraine and Taiwan. I think that means they will not be able to stop the emergence of a multipolar world order unless they subdue the Middle East. And they can’t do that unless they overthrow the government in Iran.

The fall of Assad is indeed a setback for BRICS+, but not a decisive defeat.

If NATO & Friends want a decisive victory in the Middle East, they will need to take out the government in Iran.

That’s why I think Iran will be the decisive battlefield of WW3.

Here is an updated geopolitical map of the Middle East and surrounding region as I see it.

With Iran’s allies across the Middle East suffering devastating blows in 2024, the US, Israel, and their allies have the most favorable conditions to attack Iran that have existed in decades.

I suspect they will not let this window of opportunity close without taking advantage of it.

It could happen in 2025.

If an attack on Iran does happen, I believe it will be the defining battle of WW3.

But it will not be a cakewalk…

Unlike most other nation states in the Middle East, Iran (known as Persia before 1935) is not an artificial construct. By race, religion, and social history, it is a nation. European bureaucrats didn’t dream up Iran by drawing zigzags on a map. The map reflects the geographic reality of a country with natural, fortress-like mountain borders. In the east, the Roman Empire generally ended where the Persian Empire began.

The US and its allies have tried to overthrow Iran’s government for over 46 years. They’ve tried pretty much everything short of a full-scale invasion.

In short, NATO & Friends have few other cards to play against Iran.

If the US really wants to decapitate the BRICS+ agenda in the Middle East, it would need to overthrow the Iranian government. That would require waging a full-scale regional war against all of Iran’s allies and launching a ground invasion of Iran.

Remember, during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)—back when Saddam was a “good guy”—he threw over 500,000 Iraqi soldiers at the Iranian meat grinder, had the backing of the US AND the Soviet Union, and used chemical weapons on a scale not seen since WW1… and he barely made a dent in Iran.

The reality is that if the US is serious about invading Iran, it would likely require total mobilization and bringing back the draft. That is not likely to happen, but even if it did, it would not guarantee US victory.

If Iran thought the US was going to invade, it could also develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent within a matter of weeks or less. It might also already have a couple of secretly obtained nukes.

Given those unfavorable prospects, NATO & Friends could decide to use nuclear weapons on Iran preemptively.

Iran is well aware that the US or Israel could use nuclear weapons against it. It has contingency plans for that outcome to ensure the survival of its government. Iran’s plans also likely include making a dash for developing its own nuclear arsenal to be able to respond in kind.

Further, it’s doubtful that Russia and China would just sit back and do nothing if NATO & Friends looked like they might nuke Iran. For example, Russia could decide to station nuclear weapons and Russian soldiers on Iranian soil as a deterrent.

In short, NATO & Friends using nukes on Iran could lead to an unpredictable series of events that could quickly spiral out of control, so I don’t view it as a likely outcome.

The Bottom Line

NATO & Friends don’t have any attractive options when it comes to dealing with Iran.

However, with the sun about to set on the US-led unipolar world order and the most favorable conditions to attack Iran that have existed in decades, they may think it’s their last best chance and go for it in 2025.

What will happen, and who will prevail?

Of course, no one can know that with certainty.

That being said, I think we can count on escalating tensions that could culminate in war with Iran in 2025.

The implications of that are difficult to overstate.

War with Iran would undoubtedly destroy all models for the energy market and cause a global economic collapse.

Most people don’t appreciate how close we are to the precipice of a historical disaster.

Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—during the previous world wars because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.

Don’t be one of them.

*  *  *

That’s why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.

The Trump Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has notified the heads of all federal agencies and departments that Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices are to be closed by end of day Wednesday, and all staff to be placed on paid leave.

According to the notice issued by Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell, all departments and agencies are to:

• Send an agency-wide notice to employees informing them of the closure and asking employees if they know of any efforts to disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language
• Send a notification to all employees of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) offices that they are being placed on paid administrative leave effective immediately as the agency takes steps to close/end all DEIA initiatives, offices and programs.
• Take down all outward facing media (websites, social media accounts, etc.) of DEIA offices
• Withdraw any final or pending documents, directives, orders, materials and equity plans issued by the agency in response to the now-repealed Executive Order 14035, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce (June 25, 2021)
• Cancel any DEIA-related trainings and terminate any DEIA-related contractors

BREAKING: Every government agency was just ordered to begin closing ALL their DEI offices – tomorrow, 5pm is deadline pic.twitter.com/NCCbXw77Io

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 22, 2025

The heads of agencies and departments are also instructed to share the following with OPM by noon Thursday, Jan. 23;

• A complete list of DEIA offices and any employees who were in those offices as of Nov. 5, 2024
• A complete list of all DEIA-related agency contracts as of Nov. 5, 2024
• Any agency plans to fully comply with the above executive orders and this memorandum

By Friday at 5 p.m., agency heads must submit to OPM:

• A written plan for executing a reduction-in-force action regarding the employees who work in a DEIA office
• A list of all contract descriptions or personnel position descriptions that were changed since Nov. 5, 2024, to obscure their connection to DEIA programs

The action comes after President Trump signed an Executive Order that eliminates all DEI programs within the federal government, and signed another order making it “the official policy of the U.S. government to only recognize two genders: male and female.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the action on X:

To every reporter asking about this: I can gladly confirm! https://t.co/gRb356vSwO

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) January 22, 2025

Trump also signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson’s EO which established affirmative action.

One year ago, I laid out a three-part agenda for the bringing colorblind equality to the government. Trump has already issued orders on two of the points. Next up: destroy the false and malicious “disparate impact” standard government-wide.https://t.co/4NDWxnOQSj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) January 22, 2025

Meanwhile, the Trump State Department has told all Embassies and Outposts that they can only fly the American Flag at facilities, and no others…

YES!!!!

Trump State Department Tells Embassies and Outposts: Fly Stars and Stripes Only—No More Pride or BLM Flags

“Starting immediately, only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestic and abroad, and featured in… pic.twitter.com/yJArHFhTfu

— Rob (@_ROB_29) January 22, 2025

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

At a time when thousands of America’s independent cattle farmers are going under each year, and herds falling to a 70-year low, one young couple believes they have found a way to save their family farm.

Livestock farming is now a far cry from what it once was, when ranchers would sell into competitive markets with prices based on quality, as well as prevailing supply and demand.

Today, four global meatpacking corporations—U.S.-based Cargill and Tyson Foods, and Brazilian-based JBS and National Beef/Marfrig—together buy 85 percent of all cattle in the United States, and many once-independent ranchers have devolved into contract labor for these companies, often selling at prices that don’t cover their costs.

The result has been an aggregate loss of 655,000 cattle farms since 1980, with an average of 20,000 ranches going under per year in America over the past five years.

After years of losing money under this system, however, Avery and Marc Wrigglesworth, owners of Lily Hill Farm in West Point, Georgia, decided to take a different path. The only way to survive, they said, was to build their own market that sells directly to customers.

While Avery grew up on the Georgia farm, Marc was raised on Jersey, a small island in the English Channel. They met in Jersey where they both were working office jobs in the finance industry.

In 2019, Avery was told by her father that the family’s farm, originally founded by her grandfather after he returned home to Georgia from a POW camp in Germany after World War II, would be sold. The herd had been sold off, down to 80 cattle, in order to pay debts, and the farm had fallen into what Marc calls a “death spiral.”

What was left was no longer able to generate enough income to keep the business going. Avery and Marc decided to quit their jobs and move to Georgia, hoping that the farm could be saved.

“We are now the third generation, and there’s always been something that’s drawn me to this place,” Avery told The Epoch Times. “It would have broken my heart to see it parceled up, and houses and subdivisions built all over it.

“I just felt like it needed to have one last chance to see if we could turn it around.”

Struggling to Stay Afloat

They soon realized that the farm could not survive the way it was being operated.

“We were just selling the calf crop at the local stockyards—that’s generally how these cow-calf operations sell,” Marc said. But they weren’t getting enough from the processors to pay their expenses, and they had to find another way.

They decided, rather than selling to the big packing companies, to try selling directly to customers.

“It was a leap of faith, but we had no other option,” Avery said. “In the three years we’d been running this place, we had a net operating loss of nearly $600,000, so it was either pack it in and leave with our tail between our legs, or take an even bigger leap and see if this will work.”

They used their social media skills to build a base of customers, but making the switch cost them both time and money, depleting their savings.

“We just had to bite the bullet and keep everything back for two years with no farm revenue,” Marc said.

Avery had already built up a following on Instagram, so they had the beginnings of a customer base. During the two years of transition, they designed their online store and expanded their following, and Avery sharpened her photography skills for a steady stream of online posts.

They found a company in Alabama that would do the meat processing for them. Once processed, the beef is returned to them, stored in a walk-in freezer on their farm, and shipped out to customers via UPS, packed in dry ice.

Two years ago, the Lily Hill Farm’s website and online store went live, selling beef directly to customers that is pasture-raised “without additional growth hormones, antibiotics, or animal by-products,” the website states. And through their social media sites, Avery and Marc work to establish personal connections with customers.

“They want to know where their products are coming from,” Avery said. “They want to know it’s a family behind it, and they want to know the people and the story behind the products they’re purchasing.”

After years in the red, this new business model has returned the farm to profitability.

“When we launched in April of 2022, we hit the ground running, and it’s been unstoppable ever since,” Marc said.

Read the rest here…

Just in time for Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, his brother’s ex-wife, Danielle Hegseth, came out with a wild, Kavanaugh-esque claim that Pete Hegseth, President Trump’s pick for Defense Secretary, made his second wife ‘fear for her safety.’

Except, Hegseth’s second wife completely denied the claim, and NBC News decided to run the story anyway.

When asked for comment, Hegseth’s ex, Samantha Hegseth, told the outlet, “I do not believe your information to be accurate, and I have cc’d my lawyer,” adding “There was no physical abuse in my marriage. This is the only further statement I will make to you.”

An affidavit containing the allegation was delivered to Senators on Tuesday, the receipt of which came after Senate Armed Services Committee staffers were in contact with the ex-sister-in-law for several days.

And who was it fed to? Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), after he requested a “statement” from the ex-sister-in-law, “attesting to your personal knowledge about Mr. Hegseth’s fitness to occupy this important position.”

And what’s this? Jack Reed is connected to the Steele Dossier used to smear President Trump as a Russian asset!

Now, Jack Reed is involved in another highly dubious Trump allegation.

First story: https://t.co/nZ7DJRCydZ

Second story: https://t.co/27Nnj868X9

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 21, 2025

To summarize: The ex-wife of Pete Hegseth’s brother lodged a false accusation against him, which the alleged victim denied, and NBC News decided to run the piece anyway.

Or as journalist Kyle Becker puts it, Alinsky 101.

Alinsky 101. The editors know the public won’t buy pieces criticizing Hegseth saying everything is just fine at the Pentagon and that endless foreign wars are cool, so they resort to smears and character assassination.

It is journalistic malpractice to run an accusation when the…

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) January 21, 2025

In this case, Dem Sen. Jack Reed just so happens to contact the source on Jan. 18, who then comes back w/ a bombshell claim about Hegseth and his ex-wife, which both of them vehemently deny on the record. But news orgs have their hook to make a story on it, truth be damned.

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 21, 2025

Remember when NBC News worked with a foreign ‘misinformation’ outfit to smear ZeroHedge, lied about the details, and then stealth-edited the article? We remember.

Authored by Terri Wu and Jan Jekielek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A former Department of Commerce official recently urged American officials and the general public to adopt an elevated sense of urgency to address the threat of U.S. supply chain dependence on communist China.

“We are running out of time. We really need to race to solve this,” Nazak Nikakhtar, former assistant secretary for Industry and Analysis during the first Trump administration, recently told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders,” adding that the problem had been neglected for “at least two decades.”

In her view, the issue stems from the deliberate strategic actions of the Chinese communist regime. She said that for many years, Beijing has engaged in unfair trade practices—often paying subsidiaries to flood the global market with cheap made-in-China products that others can’t compete with, thereby gaining control of an industry’s supply chain and moving on to undercut the next one.

Compared to China’s dominance in the production of steel, batteries, solar cells, and personal protective equipment—all of which the American public is aware of due to the tariffs imposed during the Trump and Biden administrations—China’s dominance in lab-grown industrial diamond production is equally critical yet lesser known.

These diamonds are essential for cutting tools—crucial for building, drilling, and manufacturing. The affected industries range from cars to aerospace and defense. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), China produces 95 percent of the world’s synthetic diamonds, and U.S. dependence on imports has fluctuated between 80 and 95 percent since 2018.

On Dec. 3, China’s ruling communist party banned the export of industrial diamonds to the United States, along with gallium, germanium, and antimony—materials critical for making semiconductors. The decision was announced a day after the United States added advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment and software to its export controls to curb Beijing’s access to these critical elements for developing artificial intelligence.

Diamonds for Industrial Power

Also referred to as “super hard materials,” industrial diamonds are part of “Made in China 2025,” the Chinese communist regime’s ten-year industrial policy aimed at achieving dominance in advanced manufacturing worldwide.

Since 2012, the regime has classified the manufacturing of diamonds and related equipment as “strategic new sectors.” Central and local authorities developed policies that promoted these businesses and provided subsidies.

Although the specific amounts are unclear, sporadic Chinese media reports have revealed annual subsidies of between 10 million yuan ($1.3 million) and 50 million yuan ($6.8 million) per company.

“Imagine a U.S. economy with zero manufacturing,” Nikakhtar warned.

USGS data indicate that the nation lacks a stockpile of industrial diamonds, and in 2023, the estimated domestic production of the diamonds met only 16 percent of the total volume needed in the United States.

“It’s just time to wake up. China has made clear that it is moving in this direction. We’ve got to take them at their word,” she said. “China has already shown us through its recent export controls that it means business, and it really has the ability to hurt the U.S. economy.”

In the past eight decades, Congress has delegated extensive authority to the president to set tariff rates. A few laws allow America’s chief executive to use tariffs to set foreign policy and protect national security interests.

During Nikakhtar’s tenure with the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Analysis, President Donald Trump invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in March 2018 to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent levy on aluminum from all countries except Canada and Mexico.

In October 2021, President Joe Biden reached an agreement with the European Union and the United Kingdom and replaced the tariffs with quotas in return for lifting the retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports.

Trump also used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs on Chinese imports worth approximately $300 billion annually. The Biden administration kept all the duties and added more last year, following a review conducted every four years.

As Trump begins his second term, Nikakhtar stated that the new administration is “very confident in how they’ve utilized the novel laws in the past” and will continue leveraging available legal mechanisms to apply tariffs to correct market distortions caused by unfair trade practices.

The Covid pandemic sparked a wave of global trade uncertainty, prompting US companies to reevaluate their complex supply chains centered in China by either friend-shoring, near-shoring, or re-shoring. This shift toward friend-shoring in Southeast Asia (ex-China) has positioned Thailand as a pivotal ally in Washington’s US-China decoupling strategy.

The ‘America First’ economic policy directed by President Trump will focus on, most importantly, re-shoring supply chains out of China and back to the US, followed by near-shoring and friend-shoring. Trump is also set to unleash tariffs on foreign goods as the US-China decoupling gathers pace. 

Focusing on friend-shoring trends, Goldman’s Allen Chang, Verena Jeng, and others hosted the “Make in Thailand Tour” last week.

During the visit to AI server liquid cooling, automotive electronics, electric vehicles, and other high-tech factories in the Southeast Asian country, Chang found a growing number of US companies are requiring suppliers to have not only Chinese factories but also a “plus one” location outside the world’s second-largest economy for diversification purposes. This has only sparked a boom in business activity in Thailand.

Chang’s first takeaway from the visit to nine factories in Thailand is that geopolitical tensions between US-China are the primary driver of business expansion: 

Companies shared that US clients started to mention “China + 1” (production sites outside of China) in 2018, turned more serious in 2022 during COVID with China under lockdown, and increased focus further in 2024 during the US elections. Companies shared some of their clients have stated that they will no longer accept suppliers (for new projects) without “China + 1” by end of 2025. We see geopolitical tensions as the major reason companies are diversifying production into Thailand.

Here are the other main takeaways driving Thailand’s expansion: 

• Clusters across Southeast Asia: Companies shared there are different clusters across countries in Southeast Asia, and supply chain usually moves with clients to secure timely services. Other than the consideration of distance to the clients, there are different features across different countries as well. For example, Vietnam is closest to China supply chain and developed early; Thailand is open for foreign investment with solid infrastructure; Malaysia’s labours have higher education especially Penang where global-tier semiconductors leaders are developing the OSAT industry since 1970s.

•  AI servers, PCs, Automotive, LEO satellites are expanding in Thailand: Companies shared that three industries are showing a clear trend of supply chain expansion in Thailand: (1) AI servers supply chain: Quanta announced in Aug 2024 plans to invest US$24m; Inventec announced in late 2023 plans to invest US$152m; Auras’ investment of US$49m to US$55m for the second factory in Thailand; ZDT’s investment of US$250m; Delton’s investment of US$180m; WTT’s investment of US$75m; (2) PC supply chain: Chicony’s investment of US$45m for the phase 2; (3) LEO satellites: Compeq’s investment of US$302m; (4) Automotive: companies shared about more Chinese car OEMs expanding to Thailand, e.g. BYD, Chery, Neta, Greatwall, Geely, etc., leading to supply chain expansion.

• Lower labour costs, but lower efficiency as well: Companies shared direct labour compensation is around 20-50% lower compared to China, or at Rmb3,000 (US$410) per month; however, for those who speak Mandarin, the costs could be double. Besides, the efficiency is one-third of Chinese labor, and thus the cost is 10-20% higher than China. To reduce costs, most companies have automated production in Thailand, and leverage government support (e.g. tax benefits, tariff benefits, etc.).

• Hiring is not difficult: Companies shared that hiring is not difficult in Thailand, as there is also labour from countries nearby, e.g. Myanmar. Besides, the working environment is good (new air-conditioned factories) with accommodation or shuttle bus provided, making it easier to attract labour. Some companies shared they received about 90 applications for 20 labour positions.

• Training in China: To meet US clients’ needs, most factories we visited target to start mass production by mid 2025. To secure a smooth production ramp up, most companies sent local labour to their factories in mainland China for training, and then back to Thailand. Some companies also shared they have 70% Chinese labour in their Thailand factories currently to secure a smooth trial run to production. In general, it takes 12-18 months for factory construction in Thailand (slower than China given there’s rainy season in Thailand), 6 months for equipment set up, 6 months for local labour training in mainland China, leading to mass production target by mid 2025.

• OEM, ODM / assemblers are closer to airports and ports: We see OEMs, ODM / assemblers factories are 40-60mins drive from airports / ports, while supply chain / component makers are 2-3 hours drive away from airports / ports, but within 1 hour drive to OEMs, ODM / assemblers. Those who invested earlier in Thailand, also enjoy closer distance to airports / ports. For example, Chicony’s Thailand factory dates back to 1989; Auras invested in Thailand in 2019; PI was also early in Thailand and moved to the inner lands to enjoy more tax benefits from the local government.

• Competition from local peers: All companies we visited didn’t seem worried about local competitors given Technology is not the focus of Thailand (i.e., less students majoring in Electrical Engineering). The government is also open to foreign investment without requirement of forming JV with local peers or cultivating local peers. However, the government strongly encourages local production. For example, the government expects car assembly and components to be produced in Thailand, but not necessarily by Thailand companies.

• Government policies are supportive: Most companies we visited enjoy 8-year tax free, and they see a stable environment for business operations, with supportive government policies, such as BOI (Board of Investment of Thailand: up to 16 years tax free, tariff free for equipment and raw material imports, funding support for R&D centers, etc.) and EEC (Eastern Economic Corridor: tax free, tariff free for equipment and raw material imports, flexibility in foreign currency outward remittance, etc.). Infrastructure (e.g. road quality) and utilities (electricity, water supply) are also efficient, with stable labour conditions (e.g. less labour strike, disruptions etc).

• EV market in Thailand: Companies shared that the EV penetration rate in Thailand is around 13-14% (in 2024), or 80k units, which is the largest EV market in Southeast Asia, and the penetration rate could further go up in 2025-26E. The major EV brands in Thailand are all from China, with BYD enjoying 30%+ market share in Thailand’s EV market, followed by Neta at 20%, and other major brands including Changan, SAIC, etc. Companies shared China remains the strongest market for EV, considering the infrastructure (e.g. charging stations) in Thailand is not yet as comprehensive as China.

Major restructuring of supply chains has been underway since Trump’s first term as re-shoring, near-shoring, and friend-shoring trends will go into hyper-drive under Trump’s second term. 

In a separate note, Goldman Chief Economist Jan Hatzius, alongside Alec Phillips, David Mericle, and others, commented on Trump’s day one of office on Monday, calling the president’s tariff reveal “more benign than expected.” This was mainly because Trump did not comment on China’s tariff policy while negotiations appeared ongoing with Chinese President Xi Jinping. However, Trump directed his trade efforts toward Canada and Mexico, threatening a 25% on both countries by February. 

As for Thailand, it has become an integral part of the US friend-shoring strategy. The big takeaway comes from the Goldman note on US companies demanding suppliers have a plus one factory outside of China, providing tailwinds for Thailand.

Meanwhile, economic tailwinds have likely produced the next yachting boom for the wealthy residents of Thailand.