Vice President-elect JD Vance said on Jan. 12 that individuals who were violent during the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021, “obviously” should not be pardoned. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to use his clemency power for people who have been charged in connection to the incident over the past four years.
Those who “protested peacefully” on Jan. 6 should receive a pardon, Vance told Fox News. He added that there is also a “little bit of a gray area” in some of those cases.
“I think it’s very simple,” Vance elaborated.
“If you protested peacefully on Jan. 6 and you’ve had [Attorney General] Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”
More than 1,500 people have been charged with federal crimes in connection to the Capitol breach, according to records from the Department of Justice. A number of people were charged with misdemeanor offenses for entering the Capitol in an unauthorized manner, while some were charged with felonies.
Leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys groups were convicted of seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors described as plots to use violence to stop the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to then-President-elect Joe Biden.
Vance said on Jan. 12 that he believes that “a lot of people” have been “prosecuted unfairly” over the past several years.
“We need to rectify that,” Vance said. “We’re very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law.”
Also on the morning of Jan. 12, Vance responded to critics on social media who said that his comments to Fox News didn’t go far enough, with some saying that all Jan. 6 defendants should be pardoned.
“I’ve been defending these guys for years,” Vance wrote on social media platform X.
“The president saying he’ll look at each case (and me saying the same) is not some walkback … I assure you, we care about people unjustly locked up. Yes, that includes people provoked and it includes people who got a garbage trial.”
That comment came in response to a prominent conservative social media account’s statement on Jan. 12 that new footage has shown “cops shooting innocent J6 protesters and [Vance] goes on Fox News and tells the world that only non violent protesters should get pardoned … better rethink what you just said JD.”
Vance noted that he donated to a Jan. 6 “political prisoner fund” and was criticized over it during his run for Ohio’s Senate seat.
In a wide-ranging news conference last week at his Florida Mar-a-Lago residence, Trump suggested he would initiate “major pardons” for individuals arrested in the aftermath of Jan. 6.
A reporter asked him, “You said on your first day of office you were going to pardon Jan. 6 defendants. Are you planning to pardon those who were charged with violent offenses?”
“Well, we’re looking at it, and we have other people in there,” Trump said, adding that “people that didn’t even walk into the building are in jail right now.”
“We’ll be looking at the whole thing. But I’ll be making major pardons, yes,” he added.
The president-elect has said on multiple occasions that he would carry out the pardons quickly after he is sworn into office on Jan. 20.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has asked the U.S. government to consider new rules restricting U.S. biotech companies from conducting clinical trials with entities linked to the Chinese military.
In a Jan. 9 letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party said the proposed restrictions will “help ensure U.S. biotechnology does not fall into the hands of the PRC,” referring to the acronym of communist China’s official name, the People’s Republic of China.
The letter, signed by Reps. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), chair and ranking member of the committee, respectively, along with Rep. Neal Dunn (R-Fla.), said biotech competition between the United States and the PRC “will not only have implications for our national and economic security, but also for the future of healthcare and the security of American medical data.”
The letter cites Beijing’s 14th Five-Year Plan—which “identifies dominance in biotechnology as critical to ’strengthen the PRC’s science and technological power’ and calls to deepen military-civil science and technology collaboration in the sector”—and a publication by a former president of the Chinese military’s National Defense University, which discussed the potential to create new synthetic pathogens that are “more toxic, more contagious, and more resistant.”
The lawmakers praised the proposals issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security in July 2024 to expand export controls to military and intelligence end users as “a welcome update.” They suggested the measures could be further strengthened by requiring a license to conduct clinical trials with medical institutions linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
“Specifically, we recommend updating the definition of ‘Military End User’ to state medical infrastructure owned or operated by the national armed services of the PRC and other countries as appropriate constitutes a military end-use if a U.S. person is seeking to engage with the institution to conduct a clinical trial,” they added.
The Epoch Times reached out to the Commerce Department for comment and did not receive a response by publication time.
The letter is a sign of growing concern over China’s role in the biotechnology industry.
In August 2024, the same committee wrote to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to ensure that U.S. clinical trials are not contributing to human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region or aiding the transfer of U.S. critical intellectual property to the PLA.
Citing official data, the letter said U.S. biopharmaceutical companies over the past decade had run hundreds of clinical trials that had at least one Chinese military entity among the research partners and conducted trials in hospitals in Xinjiang, “where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is engaged in genocide of the Uyghur population.”
In a response letter to the lawmakers dated Jan. 2, the FDA Acting Associate Commissioner for Legislative Affairs Laura Paulos said protections are in place for trial participants.
“Given concerns regarding the human rights abuses occurring in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, FDA has publicly reiterated that (legislation) requires clinical trials to obtain the legally effective, informed consent of human subjects,” she wrote.
In response to concerns about intellectual property theft and technology transfer, Paulos referred the lawmakers to “appropriate U.S. federal agency partners.”
In addition to clinical trials, the committee has asked the Department of Defense (DOD) to add several Chinese biotech companies to its list of companies allegedly linked to the Chinese military. Two of these companies, Origincell and MGI Group, were added to the updated list on Jan. 7, along with dozens of others in sectors such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, drones, and shipping.
The DOD also included BGI Group, the parent company of MGI and BGI Genomics, which was previously designated as a Chinese military company, and another BGI subsidiary, Forensic Genomics International.
President Joe Biden has shared his disapproval at Meta’s decision to do away with its current social media fact-checking program.
This week Meta, which owns the Facebook and Instagram social media platforms, announced it would stop using its third-party fact-checking program for U.S.-based content review purposes.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he made the decision because the existing fact-checking program has become “too politically biased,” resulting in censorship and a loss of trust.
“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” he said in a Jan. 7 video statement.
Asked for his opinion on the move at a Jan. 10 press conference, Biden said, “It’s just completely contrary to everything America is about.”
Up until this week, Meta had partnered with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to run its third-party fact-checking service. The IFCN is administered by the Poynter Institute, which also operates the PolitiFact fact-checking publication.
“The idea that, you know, a billionaire can buy something and say ‘by the way from this point on, we’re not going to fact-check anything’ and you know when you have millions of people reading, going online reading this stuff it’s—anyway, I think it’s really shameful,” Biden said.
Meta is not doing away with fact-checking outright. Rather, Zuckerberg said Meta’s platforms will move toward a “more comprehensive community notes” style system, similar to the one employed by social media platform X. He will start the new model in the United States.
Rather than relying on a fact-checking organization such as the IFCN to review content, X’s community notes feature allows users to weigh in directly. X users may suggest a fact-checking note on controversial posts on the platform, and then provide feedback on whether a suggested fact-checking note is itself accurate, and necessary for the particular post. Posts that have been flagged with sufficient community input display an attached fact-checking note explaining why the particular post is inaccurate or may be missing important context.
Zuckerberg also announced that Meta’s content moderation team will be moved out of California to Texas “where there is less concern about the bias of our teams.”
Zuckerberg and other Meta officers have defended the move as needed to restore free speech and expression to their platforms.
In a Jan. 7 blog post, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, said as well-intentioned as their prior fact-checking efforts had been, “they have expanded over time to the point where we are making too many mistakes, frustrating our users, and too often getting in the way of the free expression we set out to enable.”
“Too much harmless content gets censored, too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in ‘Facebook jail,’ and we are often too slow to respond when they do,” Kaplan said.
Meta’s fact-checking and content moderation decisions had been a point of contention during the 2020 presidential election cycle.
In October 2020, the Meta platforms reduced the reach of posts linking to articles by The New York Post concerning a laptop that then-candidate Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, had reportedly abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop. The New York Post’s articles detailed the contents of the laptop, including documents indicating the elder Biden had some level of interaction with his son’s foreign business partners.
In a Jan. 10 interview with podcast host Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg alleged that officials in the Biden administration routinely contacted Meta, with demands that they remove or suppress certain content, including memes and satirical posts.
“Basically these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse,” Zuckerberg said.
The Epoch Times reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
Inflation Expectations Will Keep Rising In 2025, And It Matters Most In Japan
By Dhaval Joshi, chief strategist at BCA Research
Executive Summary
In the developed economies excluding Japan, rising inflation expectations will lift them further above the 2 percent target. This will limit the scope for further interest rate cuts.
But in Japan, rising inflation expectations will lift them up to the BoJ’s 2 percent target. This will remove the BoJ’s justification for its decades-long zero interest rate policy (ZIRP).
The normalisation of Japan’s monetary policy poses a big risk to stocks because Japan has been the main source of financial market liquidity, and thereby, of rising stock market valuations.
Hence, the biggest risk to US tech valuations comes from a rise in the Japanese real bond yield.
On a structural (1-2 year) time horizon though, it is highly likely that Japanese real yields will rise, causing a meaningful setback in stocks versus bonds, and especially the US superstar stocks.
But from a timing perspective, wait until the complexities of the price trends in USD/JPY and/or Nasdaq versus 30-year T-bond have reached the point of collapse that signalled previous reversals at the end of 2023 and the summer of 2024. You can monitor these indicators on our website.
Go tactically long copper.
2024’s political Zeitgeist was encapsulated in what I have called the ‘3 I’s’: Incumbents punished for Inflation and Immigration.
Incumbent governments were given a kicking by furious electorates who had suffered a huge drop in their standard of living. And it made not the slightest difference whether the incumbents were left-of-centre Democrats in the US, centrist Macronists in France, or right-of-centre Conservatives in the UK.
In the case of excess immigration, the loss of well-being was feared. In the case of excess inflation, the loss of well-being was genuine. Yet since peaking in 2022 at close to 10 percent, inflation has plunged to the low-single digits. So, why is everybody still so angry?
It’s Cumulative Inflation That Matters
One of the main reasons that central banks target 2 percent inflation is that 2 percent is the highest rate of inflation that goes largely unnoticed. Going largely unnoticed, households and firms do not consciously factor sub-2 percent inflation into their price and wage setting processes. This prevents an ‘inflation spiral’ taking hold.
The reason that sub-2 percent inflation goes largely unnoticed is that economic productivity also tends to rise at 1-2 percent. And to the extent that wages rise in line with productivity, people will not suffer a loss of purchasing power when prices rise at 2 percent or below. So, the inflation goes unnoticed.
The thing that people notice and hate, is the cumulative loss of purchasing power when prices keep rising at above 2 percent.
Telling people that inflation is back down in the low-single digits will not make them feel any better when they have just suffered a cumulative loss of purchasing power of 25 percent!
It is this cumulative effect of past inflation that sets inflation expectations. As the charts in this report show, market expected 10-year inflation is nothing more than historic 10-year inflation (with a small tweak for the very recent inflation experience)
But what about survey-based inflation expectations? The answer is that survey-based inflation expectations like the University of Michigan consumer survey of 5–10-year US inflation expectations also track delivered long-run inflation (albeit, plus a constant).
Hence, to get cumulative inflation back to the 2 percent rate that is unnoticeable, inflation must fall below 2 percent to offset the post-pandemic period when inflation was running well above 2 percent. But as central banks are unlikely to take inflation much below 2 percent, inflation expectations – as a mathematical identity – will trend higher
Put more simply, inflation expectations will trend higher because the post-pandemic noticeable inflation era will become a greater part of our collective experience compared with the pre-pandemic unnoticeable inflation era.
Or, more precisely, inflation expectations will trend higher unless they cause a deflationary shock (or an exogenous deflationary shock arrives) that wrench them lower again. Such a shock might come from Japan.
Japanese Inflation Expectations Are Approaching Mission Accomplished
In the developed economies excluding Japan, rising inflation expectations will lift them further above the 2 percent target. This will limit the scope for further interest rate cuts, for two reasons. First, because it risks further un-anchoring those inflation expectations.
Second, because it is the real bond yield that matters for the economy. If inflation expectations rise, then nominal bond yields must also rise to achieve a given real stance of monetary policy. This means that bond yields will trend higher until the shock arrives that wrenches them lower. In Japan though, rising inflation expectations will lift them up to the BoJ’s 2 percent target.
Mission accomplished, it will remove the BoJ’s justification for its decades-long zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), especially with the real bond yield now deeply negative. It may sound perverse after decades of too low inflation, but once inflation is close to target, a deeply negative real bond yield risks taking Japanese inflation too high.
The Normalisation Of Japan’s Monetary Policy Poses A Big Risk To Stocks
The normalisation of Japan’s monetary policy poses a big risk to stocks because Japan has been the main source of financial market liquidity, and thereby, of rising stock market valuations.
Through 2019-2022, the Nasdaq’s valuation (earnings yield) moved in perfect lockstep with the US real bond yield, as might be expected. But in late-2022, the Nasdaq’s valuation detached from the US real yield and attached to the world’s last remaining negative real bond yield – in Japan.
Hence, through 2023-2024, the Nasdaq’s earnings yield has moved in near-perfect lockstep with the Japanese real bond yield. This means that the biggest risk to US tech valuations does not come from a rise in the US real bond yield. The biggest risk comes from a rise in the Japanese real bond yield. This also solves the seeming mystery as to why the US tech valuations have been largely unscathed by the recent surge in the US real bond yield. To reiterate, US tech valuations are not tracking the US real yield, they are tracking the Japanese real yield. US tech valuations have been largely unscathed because the Japanese real yield has not surged… yet.
On a structural (1-2 year) time horizon though, it is highly likely that Japanese real yields will rise. This will end the major source of financial market liquidity that is behind the powerful yet narrow 2023-24 surge in stock market valuations. On this structural (1-2 year) time horizon therefore, I expect a meaningful setback in stocks versus bonds, and especially the US superstar stocks.
But from a timing perspective, wait until the market has become too dovish on the BoJ and/or too bullish on the US superstar stocks. In other words, when the complexities of the price trends in USD/JPY and/or Nasdaq versus 30-year T-bond have reached the point of collapse that signalled previous reversals at the end of 2023 and the summer of 2024.
These excellent timing indicators are not yet flashing red. The good news is that you can monitor them updated daily on our website.
Go Tactically Long Copper
Finally, relating to trend changes among the major investments and sectors we monitor, there is a tactical buying opportunity for copper.
The recent sell-off in copper has reached the collapsed short-term complexity that has signaled stabilisations and rebounds through 2023-24.
Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly noted how once again the Democrat narrative that President Trump is a dangerous threat to Democracy doesn’t jive with the way they act around him, after Obama was seen chatting and laughing with Trump at Jimmy Carter’s funeral.
As we highlighted, the pair were seen sharing a cordial exchange after being seated together, with lip readers claiming that Trump asked Obama to meet somewhere quiet after the ceremony to discuss something important.
“I want people to remember what former President Obama was saying about Trump, literally, in October, okay, three months ago,” Kelly noted adding that Obama claimed Trump “wants Hitler’s generals to take over, and he’s genuinely dangerous.”
“Barack’s laughing, genuinely laughing, to where, like his body is shaking,” Kelly continued, commenting on the exchange between Obama and Trump.
“Hitler’s so funny. Hitler’s quite charming when you spend time with him, one on one,” Kelly further quipped.
Her guest Jesse Kelly commented, “Obama was the one who engineered the coup. He was the one who engineered the coup to get Joe Biden out of the White House. And not only did he engineer the coup to get Joe Biden out of the White House, he’s the one who vouched for Kamala Harris with his vast Donor Network, billionaire after billionaire after billionaire.”
“He knifed Joe Biden in the ribs, shoved him out the back of the White House and then picked up the phone and organised $1.5 billion to be given to Kamala Harris for her campaign, where she proceeded to not only embarrass herself the entire time, she embarrassed him.” Kelly further urged.
He further explained, “When you vouch for somebody with a bunch of billionaires and they flame out as badly as she flames out, well, he is not going to do that again. And without Barack Obama, without daddy Barack harrying her, Kamala Harris is never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be able to launch a significant presidential run again in her life.”
Watch:
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
According to new research, morning coffee drinkers had a significantly lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer compared to those who consumed coffee throughout the day.
Impact on Mortality Risk
The large-scale study, published in the European Heart Journal on Wednesday, tracked more than 40,000 adults for nearly a decade.
Researchers found that there were two types of coffee drinkers: those who drank coffee only in the morning (36 percent of participants) and those who drank coffee throughout the day (about 15 percent).
Compared to people who did not drink coffee, morning coffee drinkers showed a 16 percent lower risk of death from all causes. The reduction in cardiovascular death risk was even more pronounced, with morning drinkers showing a 31 percent lower risk.
In contrast, people who drank coffee all day had no significant reduction in death risk.
Amount of Coffee We Drink Also Matters
Researchers also discovered that the timing of coffee consumption affected the relationship between the amount of coffee people drank and their mortality risk.
Among morning-type drinkers, both moderate (1 to 3 cups) and heavy (more than 3 cups) coffee drinkers had the highest reduction in mortality risk, with moderate drinkers benefitting slightly more.
However, this benefit was not seen in coffee drinkers who drank coffee throughout the day. This suggests drinking your coffee in the morning is more beneficial for cardiovascular health and overall longevity than having it later in the day.
Possible Mechanisms
While the exact mechanism of how drinking coffee in the morning reduces the risk of death from cardiovascular disease remains unclear, afternoon or evening coffee consumption might disrupt circadian rhythms and melatonin levels, Dr. Lu Qi, lead researcher and professor at Tulane’s Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, told The Epoch Times.
These disruptions could affect cardiovascular risk factors like inflammation and blood pressure.
“Previous studies have shown drinking coffee is related to lower risk of mortality and risk of chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers,” Qi said. “Our study for the first time indicates that the time of coffee drinking matters regarding its beneficial effects, and drinking coffee in the morning only may strengthen the benefits.”
Qi emphasized the importance of considering both the timing and amount of coffee intake when considering its effects on health outcomes.
He added that further studies are needed to validate these findings in other populations and test the impact of changing coffee consumption timing.
Argentine President Javier Milei’s decision to reduce the age of legal gun ownership from 21 to 18 has garnered support from the public. Many city residents say greater civilian access to firearms comes at a the right time for those living in crime-stricken streets and may signal a shift in the country’s attitude toward gun ownership.
Since 2007, Argentina has focused on voluntary civilian disarmament—which many Argentinians say this has helped criminals more than anyone else.
Fabian Calle, a member of former President Mauricio Macri’s administration, told The Epoch Times Argentinians weren’t shocked when Milei lowered the age for legal firearms ownership. He said many people in Buenos Aires already carry guns due to high rates of violent crime.
“The people in Buenos Aires abide by the law of the strongest in the streets,” Calle said.
Local media reports in 2024 noted spikes in homicide, robbery, and petty theft in Buenos Aires.
This stands in contradiction to official figures released in August, which reported a 4.4 percent drop in the national homicide rates in the first half of 2024.
Soft on Crime
Some Argentinians don’t feel safe walking around Buenos Aires, a city that has witnessed a surge in poverty and homeless camps in recent years.
The link between poverty and crime has been studied at length, with recent evidence suggesting fewer economic resources may influence or trigger criminal behavior.
High unemployment, soaring inflation, and poverty were prevalent under the last administration of President Alberto Fernández, during which poverty levels surpassed 40 percent in some parts of the country.
It’s a situation that Milei’s administration is still working to address amid sweeping economic reforms that has already cut thousands of government jobs and state spending by 30 percent.
In December, Argentina’s Ministry of Human Capital stated that national poverty levels had been brought down to 49.9 percent from 54.9 percent in the first quarter of 2024. The agency attributed the high poverty rate to “the crisis left by the inflationary economic model of the previous administration.”
“You need to look over your shoulder more often now, there are so many people camping in the streets,” Buenos Aires resident Lucilla Martinez told The Epoch Times. “Even in tourist areas, they [homeless people] can be aggressive or start yelling if you don’t give them money.”
Martinez believes public’s attitude toward firearms ownership is shifting away from the notion of less guns equals less gun crime, an ideology that was promoted by the previous administration.
Much of this shift has to do with residents feeling less safe outside their homes, according to Martinez. She said she used to walk the last few blocks from the metro stop to her job in Palermo, but now takes a taxi the rest of the way.
“It just doesn’t feel safe, even in some nicer places. I have a friend who was robbed outside a restaurant and it wasn’t even late [at night],” Martinez said.
She thinks more people will want to carry registered firearms now that there’s less of a stigma around the issue under Milei’s leadership.
“So many regular people already own guns. They don’t say anything or others are afraid to get one because for years, we were told by politicians that more guns will mean more crime,” she said.
Organized crime is another problem that’s on the rise in Argentina. This is exemplified in the city of Rosario in Santa Fe province, which has been a breeding ground for violent crime for years due to its position on the international narcotics smuggling route.
At the same time, Calle said a lot of judges in Argentina are “soft on criminals,” who don’t end up spending much time in jail due to loopholes in the legal system.
“We have a society that is unarmed and protected with nothing,” Calle said, “But we have criminals that are protected by judges.”
Part of this is due to the influence of organized crime on Argentina’s judicial system. The Global Organized Crime Index states that cartels hire professional killers to assassinate judges and some “operate from prisons and enjoy protection from politicians, judges, and deputies.”
Consequently, Calle said Argentina has a growing number of criminals who are protected by judges who find ways for them to spend little to no time in jail.
Another reason Argentinians support Milei’s move on lowering the age of gun ownership is the convoluted nature of the existing law, according to Calle. He pointed out that previously, you could go to war at age 18, but couldn’t purchase a legal firearm.
“In Argentina there are a lot the of laws about age that are confusing,“ he said. ”Argentinians can vote since they are 16 and they can go to war when they are 18. So you can vote, but can’t go to war. You can go to war, but you can’t own a gun.”
Gun reform is something Milei was passionate about during his election campaign, earning him much criticism among his opposition.
In a 2022 interview, Milei said, “I am in favor of the free carrying of weapons, definitely.” He added the prohibition of arms doesn’t stop criminals from using them and that the “expected profits” for criminals will only increase and result in more crime.
Mateo Gonzalez, a Cordoba native and university student in Argentina’s second largest city, agrees with this assessment. He told The Epoch Times that violent crime in his hometown has gotten worse since 2019.
“There are a lot of robberies here of businesses and homes. It got worse when inflation was over 100 percent,” Gonzalez said.
When asked how he feels about being able to purchase a legal firearm now at age 20, Gonzalez said he and his family are a lot more open to the idea of gun ownership these days.
“Criminals aren’t shy about using weapons against unarmed people. Having a gun may persuade bad people to go somewhere else,” he said.
Though he’s open to the idea of having a firearm, Gonzalez said he’ll likely keep it at home to protect his family, and only if they agree.
“That was a promise Milei made during his campaign. If criminals can get a gun very fast, then good people should also be able to get guns,” Calle said.
Voluntary Disarmament
Milei’s liberal approach to civilian gun ownership in Argentina stands in sharp contrast to previous initiatives established under former president and vice president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
Kirchner was elected as Argentina’s first female president in 2007 after her husband, Nestor Kirchner, held the office since 2003.
The same year she was elected is when Congress passed law 26216, where legislators described the possession, purchase, and sale of firearms as a “national emergency.” Law 26216 also approved a voluntary civilian gun buyback program that earned high praise from the United Nations.
Between 2007 and 2012, the state purchased an estimated 160,531 firearms from residents who willingly surrendered their guns for cash, according to a United Nations report. The going rate for a gun was between $45 and $140, depending on the type of weapon.
Some researchers have pointed out that the timing of the celebrated gun buyback program came at a very convenient time for the Peronist party, which managed to concentrate power by 2007.
In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Democracy, the authors noted that while both Kirchners’ administrations remained “fully democratic,” two key problems plagued Argentina at the time: weak political opposition to the renewed strength of Peronism and equally shaky federal institutions.
Calle said ever since Milei began talking about the “free carrying” of weapons, left wing politicians and their supporters have painted an outcome of chaos and violence in the streets.
He clarified that only authorized arms dealers or “armarias” will be allowed to sell legal firearms and there are also background checks, personal information requirements, and other steps needed to purchase a legal gun in Argentina.
“Leftists are trying to sell that it’s going to be bad or evil, disorder and people running around with guns in the streets,” Calle said.
The last time the Peronist party modified Argentina’s gun laws to include more oversight and restrictions was in 1975. A military junta ousted the elected government and seized power the following year, enacting further controls on civilian firearms.
AP News Heavily Ratioed For Blaming Palisades Fire On Climate Change
The Associated Press published an article titled “Climate Change Contributed to a Week of Wild Weather That Upended Life in the US,” which was heavily ratioed on X for blaming the Palisades Fire solely on “climate change.”
The journalist behind the article, Melina Walling, who uses the pronouns “she/her,” failed to mention arson reports and the alarming mismanagement of city fire resources by radical far-left Democrats in power, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom.
“Climate change laid the groundwork for California’s megafires,” Walling wrote.
Walling’s selective reporting, aimed at drumming up climate anxieties among the public to further the left’s climate change agenda, is extraordinarily misleading.
She failed to mention in her coverage that the Palisades Fire spread so quickly because the Pacific Palisades reservoir, which was supposed to provide water to extinguish the fire, was completely empty.
“This was supposed to be the water to put out the Palisades fire.”
The FP’s Austyn Jeffs visits the Santa Ynez Reservoir that has reportedly been empty since February 2024. pic.twitter.com/DwO5OrYhWk
“The solution to dangerous, out-of-control wildfires in California is addressing the root cause: ‘excess fuel load’ from bad forest management. Focusing on climate change, a minor variable that we ‘have no near-term control over, is a craven political ploy…
[T]emperatures have risen 1 degree C in the last 150 years. Is it really possible that that amount of warming makes dangerous wildfires inevitable? No. … The negative effect of rising global temperatures on California wildfire susceptibility in particular is dubious because past centuries had far more fire-prone climates. The Palmer Drought Index shows only a slight increase in California drought since 1900.
“Historical evidence shows us that prior to man-made CO2 emissions CA experienced regular ‘megadroughts‘ that could last over a century. The modern era has been very lush by comparison. Even if CA could lower global CO2 levels we could easily suffer a regional drought…
“The root cause of today’s wildfires is terrible forest management. Policymakers have prevented controlled burns, debris clearing, and logging — jacking up the ‘fuel load’ to incredibly dangerous levels. … The path forward is simple: focus on the main cause, forest management, which is totally within our control. Stop pretending that lowering CO2 levels would bring about some fire-free paradise–and that it is possible near-term. Stop mandating ‘unreliables.’ Decriminalise nuclear.”
But that doesn’t explain California’s long history with massive wildfires, or why fires became less threatening throughout most of the 20th century.
We can find a more likely culprit in the states’ recent extreme environmental and social policies.
…
Environmental leftists promised that laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act would protect and improve the environment. Fifty years later we’re entitled to ask: How’s it going? Between 2012 and 2021, we lost a quarter of California’s forestland to wildfires. A UCLA study estimated that California’s 2020 fires released twice as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as had been prevented by the previous 18 years of primarily government-enforced restrictions.
…
Fire is a condition of nature, but how we deal with it is a choice. The tragedy in Southern California is the result of decades of self-destructive policies made by foolish politicians. We can change the policies that got us into this mess by throwing out the politicians who made them. Let’s hope we do so before the next big fire.
Selective reporting by Walling to further a far-left climate agenda (and providing cover for Democrats in the state) is why trust in media has crashed to record lows.
When John A. Roebling completed the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge in 1866, it was the longest suspension bridge in the world. Shortly after completing the bridge, which crossed the Ohio River, he was hired to design the Brooklyn Bridge. This bridge would surpass the length of the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge by a third. Roebling, unfortunately, would die before he could witness the construction of the New York City-based structure; but his son Washington and daughter-in-law Emily would complete the project in his stead.
Roebling’s influence was arguably most strongly felt by his immediate family and his legacy most attached to the Brooklyn Bridge. But approximately 25 years after his death, a young engineer would incidentally be influenced by Roebling and would directly extend the suspension bridge builder’s legacy to the other side of the country in San Francisco.
Before Joseph Strauss graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1892, he found himself in the hospital recovering from an illness. The 5-foot-3-inch class president and class poet had been placed in a hospital room with a view that would change the course of his life. Through the window, he could see the Covington-Cincinnati Bridge. The structure inspired him to pursue a career in bridge design.
During his graduation ceremony at the university, he professed his goal to build a railroad that would stretch across the Bering Strait. His goals were lofty, if not impossible, but it was this drive that would place him in the position to create “the bridge that couldn’t be built.”
A Bridge Across the Strait
The idea of a bridge that stretched across the Golden Gate Strait had been discussed for decades. It was first broached in 1872 by Charles Crocker, the railroad magnate who had been part of the “Big Four” to found Central Pacific Railroad. (Joshua Norton, the Gold Rush speculator who went bankrupt and then insane, is also credited with making the first calls for the bridge in 1869, though he was hardly taken seriously.)
As the Bay Area population continued to grow exponentially over the final decades of the 19th century, a bridge across the strait seemed imperative. But the problems that faced engineers were many. The Pacific Ocean with its strong tides fed right into the strait, not to mention the consistent wind gusts that swept along the coast, and the city’s famous fog. Additionally, the San Andreas Fault lay seven miles off the city’s coastline, which could initiate devastating earthquakes, as citizens discovered in 1906.
Ten years after the earthquake, the topic of the bridge was again broached in earnest. James H. Wilkins, an editor and publisher of a local newspaper, as well as a former structural engineer, began a campaign to promote the necessity of building the bridge.
“In 1872,” he recalled, “I was present at a session of the Marin supervisors when Charles Crocker explained his plans, among which was a suspension bridge across the Golden Gate. Detailed plans and estimates for such a bridge were actually made by the Central Pacific engineers.”
But that was nearly 50 years prior, so new estimates were needed. Wilkins’s campaign caught the attention of Michael M. O‘Shaughnessy, the San Francisco city engineer. O’Shaughnessy began seeking the opinions of engineers. Their opinions were not positive. The price tag at $100 million was cost-prohibitive.
Sounding the Strait
Interest in the bridge remained, although it waned during World War I, as the country became involved shortly after Wilkins began his campaign. Toward the end of 1918, interest resumed. Richard Welch, a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, issued a request that Congress authorize a federal survey of the strait: specifically between the Presidio, located on the northern tip of the San Francisco peninsula, and the Marin Peninsula, on the northern side of the strait.
Congress acquiesced to the request, and the USS Natoma, of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, conducted soundings of the area by the end of May 1920 and submitted its report.
The report was submitted to O’Shaughnessy, who then reached out to three prominent bridge builders: Francis McMath, Gustav Lindenthal, and Strauss. In his letter to them, he wrote, “Everybody says it cannot be done and that it would cost over $100,000,000 if it could be done.”
Lindenthal responded with a quote of $50 million to $60 million. McGrath did not respond. Strauss, after conversing with O’Shaughnessy, suggested it could be done for approximately $25 million.
By this time, Strauss had already become one of the country’s prominent bridge builders. He had begun his career as a draftsman for New Jersey Steel and Iron Company, then for Chicago’s Lassig Bridge and Iron Works Company. He worked with then arguably America’s greatest bridge builder, Ralph Modjeski. Strauss, however, wished to pursue the bascule bridge, which are drawbridges. In 1904, he founded Strauss Bascule Bridge Company and would go on to construct approximately 400 bridges.
Considering his reputation, it was apparent Strauss knew something the others didn’t. Strauss was hired, but the process had only just begun, and construction was still more than a decade away.
Entities were created, such as the Association of Bridging the Gate, which encompassed representatives from the surrounding counties. Their objective was to ensure that all counties were in favor of building the bridge and to gain permission from the state legislature to create a legal district, which would manage the entire process of building and maintaining the bridge and roadway. In May of 1923, the state congress passed the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District Act of California, permitting the Association to create the aforementioned district, which was created in December 1928.
The District was to have control over the project, but the Presidio was a U.S. Army outpost and was therefore under the jurisdiction of the U.S. War Department. In fact, both sides of the proposed locations for the bridge were under the Department’s jurisdiction, and for construction to be conducted, the District would need a federally issued permit. The concerns for the War Department was whether the bridge would hinder navigation and logistics, as well as whether the bridge could possibly become a blockade if it were ever destroyed. On Christmas Eve 1924, Secretary of War John Weeks issued a temporary permit.
The representatives from Del Norte, Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma, and parts of Mendocino and Napa Counties made up the new Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District with Strauss as chief engineer. Strauss was bent on building “the biggest thing of its kind that a man could build,” and, as the preliminary issues fell into place, he would soon get that chance.
Change of Plans
Strauss added Charles Ellis, professor of structural and bridge engineering at the University of Illinois, to his team to update design plans and ensure structural integrity. Eventually, that relationship would sour to the point that Strauss relieved Ellis of his position. Ellis also received no credit from Strauss for his contributions.
Before that relational fallout, however, Ellis played a pivotal role in developing the bridge and was relied upon heavily by Strauss. He, along with Leon Moisseiff, who had designed the Manhattan Bridge, provided reports on their concerns about Strauss’s proposed cantilever-suspension bridge. It seems it may have been as late as the summer of 1929 that Strauss decided to dispense with his cantilever-suspension bridge in favor of a suspension bridge.
It appeared as though the Golden Gate project would soon be underway, but another catastrophe looked to sideline the project. Reminiscent of past decades, like the 1906 Earthquake and World War I, the Stock Market crashed on Oct. 29, 1929, eventually plunging the country into the Great Depression. Permits and plans were one thing, but having the people’s support for such an expensive project was another. The District decided to have the people vote on it.
There had been opposition to the construction of the bridge for varying reasons from the likes of environmentalists and ferry operators, as well as engineers who believed the project unfeasible. The District put the $35 million bond issue before the voters. This bond required locals to use their business properties, farms, and homes as collateral. Despite the great personal risk required, on Nov. 4, 1930, the bond passed overwhelmingly: 145,057 to 46,954.
Mitigating Risks
During this period in major structure building history, there was the assumed risk of one fatality per $1 million. At $35 million, the District could expect approximately 35 job-related deaths. Strauss, however, desired to reverse this trend. Before construction began, he instituted new safety measures and gear, including glare-free goggles and mandatory hard hats, which were made similar to those worn by miners. Additionally, during the later stages of the bridge’s construction, he spent $130,000 to place a large net under the bridge to catch falling workers. In all, this net saved the lives of 19 men, who hailed themselves members of the “Halfway-to-Hell Club.” Eleven men died during the four-year project, 10 of whom died during a single accident when a 5-ton piece of scaffold fell through the net into the water.
With the Great Depression in full swing by the time construction got underway, there was no shortage of men looking to join the major project, especially with its union pay far exceeding what could be found elsewhere. On Dec. 22, 1932, workers began constructing a 1,700-foot access road toward the Marin anchorage of the bridge.
It was during this week in history, on Jan. 5, 1933, that construction began on the suspension bridge, which would famously become known as the Golden Gate Bridge. The first portion of the project was to remove 3.25 million cubic feet of dirt for the bridge’s two anchorages. Not including those anchorages, the bridge would weigh approximately 840 million pounds. Its highest peak above the water would reach 746 feet, and with its famous “International Orange” color, it proved visible even during foggy days. The bridge was suspended by 27,572 wires, altogether long enough to wrap around the globe more than three times. And, reminiscent of his initial Roebling inspiration and his personal determination, Strauss’s bridge held the title of the longest suspension bridge in the world for 27 years after its completion on May 27, 1937.
A Message To All Americans From Storm-Ravaged Western North Carolina
Jason Ward, with Valley Strong Relief—a non-profit organization focused on providing aid to thousands of residents displaced in Western North Carolina by Hurricane Helene—released a TikTok video discussing the horrors of the Palisades Fire raging in Los Angeles County. However, he asked one crucial question: “What about Appalachia?”
Ward cited President Joe Biden’s recent X post: “The federal government will cover 100% of the cost of measures to protect lives and property in Southern California for six months.” Referring to the X post, Ward said, “I hope that happens.”
Ward then segues to the topic of forgotten and devastated Western North Carolina, asking, “What about Appalachia?”
Snow covers areas of western North Carolina ravaged by Hurricane Helene. Some people there are still living in tents, and piles of debris remain.
“We are 105 days in since one of the most devastating storms known to mankind. We are still supplying our own campers, shelters, while paying mortgages on piles of rubble. We are still running our own supply hubs for many people that lost everything, including homes and jobs. We still have bridges out – only four percent of the debris has been picked up. Many businesses are bankrupt, with insurance denying their claim,” he explained.
Ward continued, “We have a polar vortex slamming Western North Carolina, while people going through ten gallons of propane a night – wonder when they will be getting their next tank.”
While the nation’s eyes are on the Palisades Fire, thousands of families are homeless, either spending cold nights in makeshift shelters, campers, tents, or, if they’re lucky, hotels and motels paid for by FEMA.
However, Fox News reported, “FEMA began notifying some families checked into hotel or motel rooms that they are no longer eligible for the program due to one of the following reasons: an inspection indicated their home is now habitable, they declined an inspection or FEMA has been unable to contact them to update their housing needs.”
While the countries eyes are on CA, the situation in WNC deteriorates. Where is @FEMA!? We need to get some eyes on this! These are fellow Americans! https://t.co/WIGGIV1KUL
“California is getting all the federal assistance it needs but meanwhile the people of North Carolina are waiting in long lines for propane just so they can have some warmth in the donated RV’s they’re currently living in . This isn’t right!” one X user said.
California is getting all the federal assistance it needs but meanwhile the people of North Carolina are waiting in long lines for propane just so they can have some warmth in the donated RV’s they’re currently living in . This isn’t right! pic.twitter.com/tVf4kDbyrI
Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret.) provided more color on the private supply hubs, helping thousands of families across the storm-devastated region.
“Biden and Mayorkas bankrupted FEMA to pay for illegal immigrant housing, and now American citizens who lost their homes in Hurricane Helene are essentially being told to screw,” Trump spokeswoman and incoming White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News.
Leavitt added: “This is unfair and arguably criminal. The good news is: President Trump will be back very soon to put Americans first again.“
