Authored by Conor Gallagher via NakedCapitalism.com,

Outgoing President Joe Biden used his farewell speech to offer warnings about an American oligarchy taking over the country. He spent about half a century in public office serving the oligarchs and helping them tighten control over the country, but he’s not wrong (aside from his choice of verb tense).

Despite a lot of hope about Trump reorienting American foreign policy to better reflect the country’s strategic interests, there are two questions that are rarely addressed in these pieces:

1. Is Trump going to take on this entrenched American oligarchy? All evidence points to a resounding ‘no.’

2. If not, the only interests that matter are those of the oligarchy, and what does it want? Everything.

Until proven otherwise, it’s probably best to view America’s “democratic” transitions of power not as a potential change in underlying strategy but as a useful spectacle that allows for a rebrand.

What does this mean for Europe? There’s a strong argument that it would be in the US national interest to back out of Europe. And the best thing that could happen to Europe would be a Trump-led US withdrawal from the continent, which would force the EU to rethink some of its economic and security policies.

What we are likely witnessing instead is the elevation of putative nationalists like Italian Prime Minister Girogia Meloni and the Alternative for Germany (Afd) party who are able to rebrand Europe’s vassalage and neoliberalism as some sort of victory against the grating virtue signalling of the Davos cabal while continuing to assist the US oligarchs in the plundering of Europe. In a worst case scenario we are likely to see even more authoritarianism in order to continue to transfer wealth from Europeans to US oligarchs.

Europe is now awash with ideas of how to “woo” Trump which is really about appeasing American oligarchy: buy more weapons, buy more LNG and oil, get tougher with China, and Meloni has set an example of selling off Italian assets to US capital.

Why Would Trump Walk Away from a Successful Bust Out Operation? 

The problem with believing that Project Ukraine and the accompanying subjugation of Europe is simply the product of some liberal-woke-Green-DEI cabal that had power across the West is that it ignores the deep-seated economic interests of American plutocrats seeking to extract wealth from any part of the world they control. That’s what the permanent state, driven by the US’ numerous buzzing plutocrat-funded think tank hives crafting bills and direct foreign policy — essentially acting as a shadow government. In some cases, the oligarchs are increasingly comfortable cutting out the middle man, as Musk shows.

Maybe I’ve missed it, but while Trump may pursue some modicum of peace in the empire’s numerous conflicts, a redistribution of wealth from the top down is not on tap, and at best there will be a shift in tactics on how to extract wealth from the rest of the world. Gains are to be increased for American plutocrats at the expense of allies and “enemies” alike seems closer to the real meaning of “America First.”

When viewed through the more traditional state strategy lens, that permanent state is often accused of suffering from a competency crisis due to its oversight of an endless parade of failures, but if you view the US as more of a gangster state focused on the short-term return for the bosses/oligarchs, well, they might be more competent than they seem. It also means the overarching strategy is unlikely to change while the oligarchs are running the show.

With that in mind, despite Ukraine’s impending defeat on the battlefield, are the US gangsters going to want to lose the gains of splitting Europe from Russia? What about the bonuses of having a terrorist state in Europe funneling arms elsewhere and willing to do dirty work like trying to blow up the TurkStream Pipeline — which if successful would benefit American energy companies. And in any detente with Russia, will American oligarchs have any interest in abandoning small progress in the Caucasus and Caspian where they are trying to control the flow of resources toward Europe from that direction as well?

In Europe there is no evidence that the old guard or the new faux nationalist political parties arriving on the scene are prepared to take on the US empire. Indeed, even the Alternative for Germany party, which has long been brutally honest about Berlin being a “slave” to the US, just last week adopted a motion to build closer relations between the two countries. That followed the party receiving some love from Elon Musk and incoming Vice President JD Vance. So is the party now willing to accept its servitude because the new slave master is more friendly or does it expect Trump to set Germany free? It’s likely to be disappointed in either case.

Even if the US extricates itself from Ukraine while ensuring that a new iron curtain is drawn between Europe and Russia, that might mean good business for US oligarchs, but also that Europe’s problems will only multiply. Here’s the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) highlighting some of what Europe could be expected to do to remain in Trump’s/the American oligarchs’ good graces:

Europe can propose creative policies – in Trumpian terms, ‘smart deals’ – to cement these shared interests and secure both itself and Ukraine. One is to coordinate the seizure of US$300 billion of Russian central-bank assets frozen in G7 financial systems, and use part of this to buy American weapons for Ukraine. This would boost both Europe’s security and America’s economy…

Yes, we can’t forget: will the Trump administration pass on the NATO racket of getting member states to pony up Trump’s target of 5 percent of GDP to buy (mostly) American-made weapons?

It’s much more than most European nations can afford financially or politically and will likely require more authoritarian measures to funnel that money out of the country. Are the European members of Trump International going to say no to military expenditures that will cripple what remains of social programs in their countries? Or is it more likely they will privatize in the name of cost-cutting and organize fire sales for American takeovers? NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is already asking European citizens to continue making “sacrifices” in order to buy more weapons. European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and others are supportive. And Lithuania just became the first EU and NATO country to pledge to meet the 5 percent target starting in 2026.

No matter that all the Western wonder weapons failed in Ukraine, the purchases must go on in the name of defense against the Russian horde.

Where else can Europeans sacrifice more? They must take a tougher line against China, as IISS again points out:

If Russia is America’s problem as well as Europe’s, it follows that China is Europe’s problem as well as America’s. The July 2024 NATO Summit labelled China the ‘decisive enabler’ of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Europe must therefore integrate economics and security into its China policy more effectively. This is overdue for Europe’s own security, but will also assuage US concerns about Europe’s commercial interests in Beijing.

Incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio is a big time believer in such demands:

We need to find out if @EmmanuelMacron speaks for Europe

After his 6 hour meeting in China he told reporters that Europe should create distance with the U.S. & should not get involved in supporting America over China when it comes to Taiwanhttps://t.co/xoFmUGkumH pic.twitter.com/Ps718bXSyn

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) April 9, 2023

And there’s the issue of enriching American energy companies. Again from IISS:

America, for its part, could also replace Europe’s imports of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG), now at a record high, with American LNG supplies. With Trump expected to lift the Biden administration’s ban on new LNG export terminals, this would create synergies of security and prosperity. Going further, Europe could also encourage the US to sell it more oil.

Trump has been clear about this:

European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who at least is self aware enough to know who she really serves, was quick to come out with suggestions to do just that following Trump’s election. And all her “tools” will continue to be useful if used in service of a more Trump-aligned EU. She has the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive to make business with certain countries more unattractive while simultaneously making US — especially energy — exports more appealing. Ursula also has the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, International Procurement Instrument, an Anti-Coercion Instrument, and the EU Critical Raw Materials Act at her disposal to use in service of the US empire against whomever it requires. As the IISS and Rubio highlight above, following the successful severance of Europe from Russia the next target is Beijing, and Ursula has increasingly used her tools to, as she calls it, “derisk” from China.

Civizational Europe

The EU’s genocide-supporting, anti-free-speech, war-with-russia “center” has been embracing the right kind of “right” for some time. As we highlighted last week, Elon Musk and AfD co-chair Alice Weidel’s X history lesson equating communism with Nazism was right in line with the “rules-based international order’s” longtime efforts to rehabilitate fascists, blame the Russians for WWII, and rewrite history in Ukraine, other former Soviet states, and increasingly in the West itself.

Weidel and Musk also propagated the false claim that Hitler was in fact a communist in a bid to portray privatizations — and presumably sell-offs of European assets to Musk’s billionaire friends — as anti-Hitlerian. Weidel, of all people should know, should know Hitler wasn’t a communist. If he was, one would think that the seed money the AfD received from a reclusive billionaire descendant of prominent Nazis wouldn’t have been availabel as it would have long ago been redistributed by Adolf instead.

This all of course fits in perfectly with a neoliberal EU that has effectively accommodated the right by eliminating effective working-class opposition. That process could now be openly expedited in order to appease the increasing demands of American and European oligarchs who have seen their dream of plundering Russia and Ukraine’s natural resources thwarted.

Perhaps Europe will now lose the pretense of sovereignty and along with it the green veneer and superior-values schtick and embrace what it champions in the former USSR states and has ushered to the altar in the bloc. Researcher Jonas Elvander,, the editor of foreign affairs at the Swedish socialist magazine Flamman and a PhD researcher in history at the European University Institute in Florence, makes the case this is indeed what is happening:

So far, the far right have mostly been sceptical of the EU, but there are no guarantees it will remain so….Since many far-right parties have emerged out of the neoliberal movement, while others are increasingly ready to adopt neoliberal policies in a bargain for power with the centre right, there is little that stops the EU from becoming a vehicle for far-right policies. In many ways we are already seeing the beginnings of such a development today…

The road had already been paved by the Commission’s adoption of a hardline approach to migration and the new Commission portfolio tasked with guarding the “European way of life.”

So it’s more of the same, but with new branding:

“Santa Giorgia” street art in Milan. Source: https://twitter.com/PalomboArtist

One obvious benefit of a marketing rethink from Davos liberalism to a faux nationalism is that it’s challenging to sell and inspire many people to fight for neoliberalism. In the US, the bourgeoisie might fly a Ukrainian flag above their “in this house we believe” yard signs, but they’re not prepared to fight. Nationalism,  religion, and defense of a common European heritage are more useful tools in what’s being pitched as a civilizational battle to come.

And that’s a scary place for Europe — or more accurately working class Europeans — to be.

A recent Washington Post op-ed asked whether Europe will soon be dominated by US corporations in the same way that “the United Fruit Co. once subjugated Honduras.”

That assumes it’s not already at the complete mercy of American billionaires — a presumption that Musk’s recent toying with the continent’s politics likely disproves.  And while today Musk is purportedly after a fair shake for the AfD, justice in the UK, and helping friends in Italy, who’s to say what his underlying economic interests are or what’s being cooked up by his friends in the bowels of the Blob? Maybe tomorrow Musk and Trump decide they’d like to support Europe against Russia the same way the US has been supporting Ukraine. Or maybe they wait a few years until after they’ve bled the cash cow dry.

There are currently 193 member states in the United Nations. And despite the UN granting membership by recognizing sovereignty, not all nations recognize each other individually.

This chart by Visual Capitalist’s creator Julie Peasley, breaks down the complex geopolitics at play. To read it: follow the arrow from one country to the other UN member that they do not recognize.

The creator chose to limit this visualization to UN member states only and not include:

• Observer states (i.e. Palestine)
• Partially recognized states (i.e. Kosovo, Cook Islands, Niue)
• Countries not recognized by the UN (i.e. Taiwan, Western Sahara)

The Murky Waters of International Relations

A brief glance at the chart shows two countries drawing the most diplomatic ire: China and Israel.

Briefly speaking, many Pacific and Atlantic islands do not recognize China, and most of the Muslim world doesn’t recognise Israel.

Source: Wikipedia.

The China bloc is explained by Beijing’s stance: no state can recognize both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) at the same time.

As a result, all the countries here who don’t recognize China, currently see Taiwan as a sovereign country.

Finally, animosity around Israel’s recognition stems from the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Most Arab nations opposed the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine and invaded Israel, leading to the 1948 war.

At various times, different Arab countries have spoken in favor of normalizing relations, on the condition that Israel withdraw from Palestinian territories.

Julie Peasley is a prolific creator, and placed as runner-up in Voronoi’s Visual of the Year 2024. If you like big visualizations that can be dived into, check out: Political Leaning in the U.S. by Occupation.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The UK and Ukraine clinched a 100-year partnership pact on Thursday in a development that’s supposed to highlight their enduring commitment to one another, but it’s really just a public relations stunt since the document only rehashes what was previously agreed upon a year ago. The UK extended so-called “security guarantees” to Ukraine on 12 January 2024, which covered everything contained in their latest pact, with the notable exception being that the latter talks about “exploring options” for “military bases”.

While RT importantly drew attention to this, the UK never made a secret about its plans to move in that direction, but the century-long timeframe means that it might not happen in anyone’s lifetime, if at all. This declaration of intent was seemingly timed to coincide with Trump’s return to office since it correspondingly serves morale-boosting purposes among Western and Ukrainian anti-Russian hawks amidst his team’s signals that the US will at least partially disengage from that country moving forward.

Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared during his Senate confirmation hearing the day prior on Wednesday that “This war must end. Everyone should be realistic: Russia, Ukraine, and the US will have to make concessions.” The writing was already on the wall long before that, however, so no one should be surprised. This reinforces the claim that the UK’s 100-year partnership pact with Ukraine, the intent of which was hitherto unknown till this week, is just a superficial response to Trump.

To be sure, some part of their “security guarantees” will probably enter into force, such as more joint arms production. The establishment of a British base in Ukraine is unlikely anytime soon though since it’s unthinkable that Trump would agree to have the US defend the UK per Article 5 if its troops there come under attack by Russia. After all, he wants to partially disengage from Ukraine so as to “Pivot (back) to Asia”, but the aforesaid scenario is a Damocles’ sword preventing that from ever occurring in full.

The British aren’t expected to build such a base without American reassurance that it’ll have their back in that event, but even if they did, it’s almost certain that the US would coerce the UK to back down should London decide to provoke a Cuban-like nuclear brinksmanship scenario if its forces are attacked. That associated clause in their 100-year partnership pact about “exploring” this “option” is therefore the embodiment of this public relations spectacle that might even be forgotten by as early as next week.

In terms of the bigger picture, the UK definitely wants to play a long-term and highly strategic role in Ukraine, but the extent to which it can execute its lofty plans as contained in last January’s “security guarantee” pact and their latest rehash last week largely depends on the US as explained. So long as it successfully disengages from Ukraine at least in part and doesn’t allow for Article 5 to be activated for foreign troops in Ukraine who come under attack from Russia, then these ambitions will be contained.

This observation goes to show just how much the US determines the military-strategic dynamics in post-conflict Ukraine. By behaving responsibly in compromising with Russia, especially if some of the dozen ideas that were proposed at the end of this article here are implemented or at least this proposal here for a demilitarized Trans-Dnieper region, the US can greatly reduce the risk of another war breaking out. The UK wants to further divide-and-rule Europe, but it’ll struggle to succeed if the US isn’t on board.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who is stepping down from his role at the helm of the agency, has penned a public farewell message in which he delivers a stark assessment of the dangers facing America, while identifying hostile actions by the Chinese regime as “the defining threat of our generation.”

Reflecting on his more than seven years leading the FBI, he wrote in a Jan. 18 op-ed published by Fox News that the threats facing the country are more severe than at any time in his career—and warned they’re about to get worse.

“From where I sit, these threats are more dangerous and complex than at any time I can recall since I began my career in law enforcement almost 30 years ago,” he wrote.

“Looking ahead, the challenges to our security will grow even more daunting, and our margin for error will continue to shrink.”

Adversaries—including cartels, gangs, hackers, hostile nations, and terrorists—are now more resourceful and technologically advanced than ever, Wray warned. Cyberattacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, encrypted apps enable secret terrorist plotting, and cartels exploit global supply chains to produce highly potent drugs that are trafficked across the border and threaten the lives of millions of Americans, he noted.

Terrorism threats are escalating, with foreign and domestic actors inspired by events such as the Hamas terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2024, Wray said, adding bad actors are mobilizing quickly and making detection increasingly difficult.

Foreign adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran are targeting Americans by stealing personal data, conducting cyberattacks on key infrastructure, exploiting businesses, and even exporting repression to U.S. shores.

“The Chinese government, in particular, has engineered an unprecedented effort to gut American innovation, steal our most precious personal data, and meddle in our free and open society. History will mark this as the defining threat of our generation,” Wray wrote.

Wray urged the the United States to prioritize unity and vigilance, warning that the margin for error in combating these threats is shrinking rapidly.

“From my seat, I see serious grown-up threats that demand serious grown-up attention,” he warned.

The outgoing director also praised the actions the FBI has taken in recent years to make the country safer and more secure. He said the agency and its partners have made significant strides in recent years, arresting nearly 50 violent criminals daily, rescuing hundreds of children, and imprisoning numerous predators. They have dismantled gangs, seized enough fentanyl to kill tens of millions of Americans, and prevented cybercriminals from extorting nearly $800 million from potential victims, he said.

The agency has also thwarted numerous terrorist attacks, including plots against places of worship, public events, and communities nationwide, Wray said. He expressed immense pride in the efforts and sacrifices of the FBI’s rank-and-file but warned them against being complacent or distracted by politics.

“Our focus must be on the threats and our work, rather than on what divides us,” he wrote. “We must continue to tackle the dangers facing our country with objectivity, rigor, and professionalism. It’s what the American people expect and deserve.”

Wray’s farewell op-ed was published just days before he steps down as FBI director. He announced his resignation in December.

Wray explained recently that he resigned because President-elect Donald Trump wants a change of leadership at the FBI.

“The president-elect had made clear that he intended to make a change and the law is that that is something he’s able to do for any reason or no reason at all,” Wray said in a CBS interview.

Trump has nominated Kash Patel to head the agency. Calling him a “brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American people,” Trump expressed confidence that the FBI under Patel’s leadership.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 agreed to hear a request from a group of Maryland parents to opt their young children out of having storybooks that promote LGBT lifestyles read to them.

The court granted the petition in Mahmoud v. Taylor in an unsigned order. No justices dissented, and the court did not explain its decision.

The petition was filed on Sept. 12, 2024, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit turned away the parents’ request for an injunction to halt the Montgomery County Board of Education’s policy of promoting the books.

The case goes back to November 2022, when the board mandated new “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks for elementary school students that promote gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex romance between young children.

The board instructed employees responsible for selecting the books to use an “LGBTQ+ Lens” and to question whether “cisnormativity,” “stereotypes,” and “power hierarchies” are “reinforced or disrupted,” the petition said.

Parents were initially told they could opt out on behalf of their children when the storybooks were read, according to the petition. The board changed its policy in March 2023. Beginning with the 2023–2024 academic year, the opt-out policy would no longer be in effect.

“If parents did not like what was taught to their elementary school kids, their only choice was to send them to private school or to homeschool,” the petition said.

Hundreds of parents, largely Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims, showed up at board meetings and testified that their respective religions required that young children not be exposed to instruction on gender and sexuality that was inconsistent with their religion.

After “parents emphasized how impressionable young children are and how they lack independent judgment to process such complex and sensitive issues,” the board members accused parents of promoting “hate” and likened them to “white supremacists” and “xenophobes,” according to the petition.

The parents sued after the board declined to accommodate them, arguing that they had a constitutional right to opt out of such instruction.

On Aug. 24, 2023, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman denied the parents’ application for an injunction to block the cancellation of the opt-out policy.

A divided Fourth Circuit panel upheld the ruling on May 15, 2024, holding that the parents had failed to demonstrate that an injunction was justified. The panel added that it took no view as to whether the parents would be able to produce enough evidence later in the proceeding to succeed in their case.

The panel also found that there was no evidence that the policy change burdened the parents’ right to free exercise of religion.

Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the parents, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case.

“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on 3-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency.

“The Court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality,” he said in a statement.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will hear the case.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the attorney for the Montgomery County Board of Education, Alan Schoenfeld of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr in New York City. No reply was received by publication time.

President-elect Donald Trump will suspend the security clearances of 51 former intelligence officials who were found to have coordinated with the 2020 Biden campaign to discredit credible and serious allegations contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop about his family’s influence peddling operation.

According to the Fox News, citing a senior administration official, Trump will take action against the so-called “Spies Who Lie,” as one of at least 100 executive orders he’s expected to sign on his first day back in the Oval Office.

Not only did federal investigators eventually confirm that Hunter’s laptop was authentic, a June 2024 report from the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Federal Government and the Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence found that “The 51 former intelligence officials’ Hunter Biden statement was a blatant political operation from the start. It originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Michael Morell.

“The Committees’ investigation revealed that without this outreach from Blinken, Morell would not have written the statement. Indeed, Morell told the Committees that the Blinken phone call “triggered” his intent to write the statement. The statement’s drafters were open about the goal of the project: “[W]e think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate”6 and “we want to give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.”

The Committees also found that:

• High ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication.
• Some of the statement’s signatories, including Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time of the Hunter Biden statement’s publication.
• After publication of the Hunter Biden statement, CIA employees internally expressed concern about the statement’s politicized content, acknowledging it was not “helpful to the Agency in the long run.”

It’s going to be a fun week, eh?

Authored by John Tamny via RealClearPolicy,

North Carolina’s legislature recently passed a Congressional Term Limits resolution in bipartisan fashion. The Tar Heel state is the third one in 2024 (joining Louisiana and Tennessee) to make the historic leap. 

Voter momentum favors limiting the amount of time those elected to Congress can serve. Which is a crucial step toward better times ahead.

To see why, simply stop and consider voter disdain for Congress. It’s well known. The latest polls from 2024 indicate that Congress’s approval rating languishes in the 19% range.

Less well known is voter support for congressional term limits. A recent Pew poll revealed that 86% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans favor term limits for Congress. Voter displeasure with Congress and support for term limits are arguably related.

To understand why, readers should never forget that being elected to Congress has little relation to success while in Congress. Those who seek election frequently promise “change” and all manner of plans meant to “throw the bums out” while disrupting “business as usual.” It doesn’t matter if the base of voters swings right or left, people want to be told that their vote will bring about change. Only for reality to mug the would-be change agents.  

Upon being sworn in, the newly elected to Congress quickly realize that they will change little to nothing. And they won’t because power in Congress resides within the hands of the very few, and the very few attain that power through a demonstrated ability to work well with, and raise funds for those they promised to throw out in the first place. Only for a status quo that has authored the growth of more and more government to run roughshod over those promising the change.

It’s been said that time in Congress changes the politician. The analysis is backwards. More realistically, politicians capable of being consistently re-elected change to reflect their evolution from a reformer who reforms nothing to a politician capable of getting things done based on a reasoned view that power rarely finds its way to those who vote no on everything, who want to change how things are done, or both. See former Congressman Ron Paul if you’re confused.

Which explains why term limits are so necessary. What limits terms in Congress limits time in Congress, which means the greatest attribute of term limits is that they would alter the incentives driving the elected.

Precisely because three terms is insufficient time for most any congressman to amass power, there will be reduced desire to acquire power to begin with. In other words, those who arrive in Washington with reform very much on their minds will have less time or reason to morph into the kind of politician that they arrived in Washington to neuter.

Which is why it’s hoped that Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee are a signal of a trend. People who run for high office aren’t inherently bad people, but the desire to be consequential once in high office brings out the bad in them. See Congress’s approval rating yet again.

The good news is that the solution to voter disdain for Congress and congressmen can be found in term limits. A lack of them presently warps the incentives of those who arrive in Washington with good intentions, but who quickly realize they must shed their idealistic ways if they want to live up to even a fraction of the idealism that first got them elected.    

John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, President of the Parkview Institute, a senior fellow at the Market Institute, and a senior economic adviser to Applied Finance Advisors (www.appliedfinance.com). His next book is The Deficit Delusion: Why Everything Left, Right and Supply Side Tell You About the National Debt Is Wrong. 

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. defense contractor Anduril Industries unveiled plans on Jan. 16 to build an advanced “hyperscale” manufacturing facility in Columbus, Ohio, aimed at increasing the scale and speed at which autonomous systems and weapons can be produced for both the United States and its allies.

The Cosa Mesa, California-based defense technology company said in a statement that it plans to begin constructing the manufacturing facility, called “Arsenal-1,” once state and local approvals are secured, after which manufacturing will begin in July 2026.

Anduril is investing nearly $1 billion into the development, which will span more than 5 million square feet (464,515 square meters) at full scale and will be located next to Rickenbacker Airport.

The factory is expected to create more than 4,000 direct jobs in Ohio, making it the largest single job-creation project in the state’s history.

Anduril said it chose to construct the facility in Ohio following an extensive, year-long search process that evaluated numerous locations across the country.

The company praised Ohio as being the “ideal” location for the weapons-making factory, citing its robust infrastructure, highly skilled and diverse manufacturing workforce, and history of advanced aviation.

It said the site’s development marks a “monumental and essential step” toward rebuilding America’s defense industrial base, bolstering warfighting capabilities, and enhancing deterrence amid rising global threats.

“Arsenal-1 represents a step forward in how we manufacture the autonomous systems and weapons that our nation and our allies need to remain secure” said Anduril CEO Brian Schimpf.

“By harnessing a world-class workforce and a scalable, software-driven approach to manufacturing, Arsenal-1 will set the standard for how we respond to the challenges of the future fight.”

Underpinning the facility is Arsenal, which Anduril said is a software-defined manufacturing platform optimized to mass-produce autonomous systems and weapons. The platform will allow Arsenal-1 to produce tens of thousands of military systems annually, according to the company.

Anduril noted that the decision to build the facility in Ohio is contingent upon state and local approvals of incentives, and other legal and regulatory matters.

According to its official website, Anduril Industries was founded in 2017 and supports operations with the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Australian Defence Force, the UK Ministry of Defence, and others.

The company mainly produces autonomous air and underwater systems, as well as rocket motors.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine welcomed the development, while praising Ohio’s history of advancing aviation, aerospace, and national defense, which began with the Wright brothers.

“At this critical moment in time, our country needs rapid technological innovation, which Anduril will deliver using Ohio’s skilled, hardworking labor force,” the governor said. “The future of American air power will be made in Ohio!”

Ohio is also home to the headquarters of aircraft engine supplier GE Aerospace and a new Joby Aviation manufacturing facility near Dayton. Joby is currently preparing to manufacture electric taxi—known as vertical takeoff and landing, or eVTOL—aircraft at the factory beginning this year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Authored by Abhishek Kambli & Erin Gaide via RealClearPolicy,

Even in the waning days of the Biden administration, they are circumventing Congress and the rule of law to illegally forgive billions of dollars in student loan debt through the collusive class action settlement of Sweet v. Cardona. As one of his first acts on January 20, President-elect Trump should shut down this travesty.

The controversy stems from a class action lawsuit against the federal Department of Education initiated by borrowers in 2019. The Trump administration negotiated a legal settlement, but it was rejected by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2020. Once the Biden administration took office, the parties negotiated a fresh settlement in what became Sweet v. Cardona. The 2022 settlement included something that had never been on the table: erasing $6 billion in student loan debt for roughly 200,000 borrowers.

The settlement has no statutory or regulatory basis. In reaching the settlement, Biden’s Education Secretary, Miguel Cardona, disregarded his duty to faithfully follow his statutory and regulatory responsibilities and, in doing so, he infringed on Congress’ power of the purse. Furthermore, by approving a settlement that, by design, undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers protections, the district court also abused its discretion.

Also troubling are the procedural defects. The revised settlement fails to meet basic class certification requirements, creating three subclasses with divergent claims and relief. One blatant example of the settlement’s procedural flaws is its violation of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a unified class. The district court should have rejected this settlement outright, but it did not. But by approving this collusive settlement, the court allowed the Biden administration’s unlawful actions to stand.

And there were those who properly objected to the settlement as well. Four of the schools that were maligned in the case were initially allowed to intervene to object.  But though the district court found the schools had a legal interest in the case, it ignored their valid concerns and approved the settlement.

The settlement was temporarily put on pause pending an appeal filed by the schools in 2023. Unfortunately, on November 5 of this year, the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 to uphold the Biden administration’s blatant abuse of executive power. The ruling thereby affirmed the district court’s approval of the underlying revised settlement that was struck between the Biden administration’s Department of Education and a plaintiff class of student borrowers seeking relief from federal student loan payments under the borrower-defense statute, 20 U.S.C. 1087e(h), and accompanying regulations.  It also disregarded the schools’ objection, creating a novel test to keep them out of the case and avoid reaching the tough questions as to the legality of the settlement.  

Judge Daniel Collins recognized these issues in his dissenting opinion. Collins rightly noted the settlement’s lack of legal basis and failure to meet class certification standards. His dissent also provides a roadmap for further legal challenges.

The settlement represents a dangerous erosion of the separation of powers. The Biden administration and Education Secretary Cardona have failed to faithfully execute the law, instead using clearly flawed settlements to achieve political aims. By disguising what amounts to legislation as a judicial settlement, the Biden administration’s class action settlement creates a backdoor for broader student debt relief, which has long been a major political goal of the Biden administration.  If allowed to stand, this precedent will open the door to further abuses.

The incoming Trump administration must move swiftly to challenge and overturn this unconstitutional settlement. The Department of Education, under Trump’s watch, should admit error and work to correct this overreach. Congress should also investigate the Education Department’s misuse of settlement authority to circumvent the legislative process.

 Our system of government depends on each branch respecting constitutional limits. The Sweet v. Cardona settlement flagrantly violates those limits. It must not be allowed to stand. And it won’t, if the incoming Trump administration makes it a priority.

Abhishek Kambli is a Deputy Attorney General at the Office of the Kansas Attorney General where he leads the Special Litigation Division. Erin Gaide is an Assistant Attorney General in the Special Litigation Division at the Office of the Kansas Attorney General.

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

Each generation believes it can create a better world. Were it not so, we would still live in caves.

Some generations thirst for change through revolution. That probably has to do with longer-term economic and political cycles. But for whatever reason, amongst these revolutionary generations, some are more determined, effective.

The 1960s-70s youth seemed radical, but they were far from French revolutionaries. Their actions failed to spark an inferno. My wife Mara grew up in a hippy enclave during that period. Her town sought to opt out of the system by going backward, living off the land, returning to simpler times.

But history rarely turns back the clock for long. That generation never had a credible plan to replace the system with something better. Nor did it have new technology to amplify force. The establishment knew this. The youth back then presented no real threat, just the appearance of instability. Daisies and LSD.

But today’s youth have built the technologies to power revolution. Their protocols remain nascent, but if they’re allowed to flourish (or if they cannot be stopped), they will credibly replace incumbent industries that the masses have come to despise (retail banks, commercial banks, central banks, wall street, money transfer agents, credit card companies, social media companies, exchanges of every kind, censors, and the list has just started).

Someday these technologies may threaten our notion of centralized government control. In the 1960s-70s, incumbents knew the revolutionaries had no credible plan.

This time, revolutionary technologies are already being rolled out. They are more efficient, cheaper, faster. They cut out the middlemen. And empower the individual.

Today’s incumbents are threatened with extinction. In fact, if today’s business leaders were 30yrs younger, most would be racing to build their companies/wealth in this new field of blockchain.

This is what a credible revolution looks like, waged by brilliant youth, impassioned, with fantastic ideas, immense wealth, and humanity’s most powerful technologies, applied in ways that incumbents can barely understand.

And it is too early to tell exactly where this new generation will lead us, only that it is to a profoundly different future.