Following the release of footage last week showcasing China’s next-generation fighter-bomber on social media platforms like X, Deutsche Bank analyst Scott Deuschle issued a stark warning to clients.
In his note, “A Wake-Up Call for Sixth Gen,”Deuschle characterized China’s rapid advancements in sixth-generation combat aircraft as a serious “wake-up call” for the United States Air Force. This development comes amid a race between the US, China, and Russia to produce fifth—and sixth-generation fighters, bombers, and hypersonic weapons.
Zoomed in.
“Emergence of this video and imagery follows several years of USAF inaction with respect to procuring sixth-generation aircraft other than B-21,” Deuschle said.
The analyst outlined the impacts on his defense coverage following China’s big reveal of the next-gen stealth tactical fighter bomber with a “diamond-shaped wing design.” He also noted a potential risk for commercial aerospace:
1. There’s still a big future for advanced aircraft: There’s been a tremendous amount of handwringing in the investment community over the last year that the future of warfare may not require the types of sophisticated and highly-engineered platforms that have traditionally been procured by DoD, with low cost drones instead being debated as being better aligned with the trajectory of the DoD’s future needs. We think this unveiling throws cold water on that debate, as the capabilities procured by the US are necessarily linked to the capabilities that its peers can field or plan to field. And China is now showing that it is focused on procuring a combination of capabilities—one that continues to include highly capable platforms. More generally, we’d also note that low cost drones are generally only low cost because they don’t have modern jet engines, and an aircraft without modern jet engines is an aircraft that doesn’t offer much in terms of flying range or long-range sensing capacity. And an aircraft without those types of capabilities isn’t likely to be very effective in the Pacific, in our view. To be clear, we think there’s a role for low cost drones, but we think it’s more likely to be a complementary role rather than one that substitutes completely for the status quo.
2. …but that future looks more challenging for F-35: We think this revealing adds some additional challenge to the future of the F-35 program. If China is flying demonstrators today for aircraft with capabilities potentially superior to the F-35, then it seems plausible to think that China may be able to industrialize production and field that capability potentially before F-35 Block IV is even completed; the Power & Thermal Management System (PTMS) capability isn’t likely to hit production until 2032 according to GAO. That China could potentially field 6th generation capabilities before F-35 achieves full Block IV capability is an unfortunate state of affairs, and would be a blow to the longer-term credibility of the platform if it happens. For Lockheed, winning a position on a 6th gen platform is now more important than ever, in our view.
3. Capability gap potentially emerging…supports increased defense spending: One of the drivers of increased defense spending during the Cold War was the idea that a “bomber gap” and then that a “missile gap” existed between the US and the Soviet Union. These perceived capability deficits were used to justify increased defense spending at the time. We think that this reveal could drive increased alarm within Congress that the US military is falling behind, which may in turn drive improved Congressional support for increased defense spending.
4. SAF’s budget outlook stronger: In addition to supporting increased defense spending generally, capability gaps of the past ultimately drove large procurement quantities for the platforms where the perceived deficit was focused—e.g. the US ultimately bought nearly 750 B-52s during its production run to address the bomber gap. With China now demonstrating a potential sixth generation aircraft capability, we think there will be more money directed to the USAF to procure additional quantities of aircraft tied to that gap—whether that’s B-21, NGAD, or otherwise.
On a stock-specific level, Deuschle said, “Increased focus on US development and procurement of 6th gen capabilities would be most positive for NOC and BA at the level of the defense primes, GE for engine suppliers (given NGAP lead, no F-35 exposure), and CW, HXL, and CR for SMID cap suppliers. We see LMT and RTX as potentially having more to lose than to win here, given their relative positions to the F-35. We think the read for HWM is net positive, albeit with some potential long-term downside risk for its F-35 business.”
He noted that Trump 2.0 will likely scrutinize how China rapidly advanced its aerospace manufacturing capabilities, potentially surpassing the US in the next decade,
“If there is another supply chain shock that could hit commercial aerospace at some point in the coming years, it is within the context of this discussion where we’d be most concerned,” the analyst warned.
What can we expect from the Trump Administration on Title IX?
One hopes Trump will immediately undo the damage inflicted by Biden’s Education Department, including rescission of the Title IX rule issued in April, already enjoined by federal courts in over half the country. The usual suspects will make the usual noise and claim Trump is “anti-woman” and taking away rights, but if Trump focuses on ending sexual identity politics to restore learning, he will be removing controversy and Title IX abuses, not causing them.
Title IX is the 1972 Congressional ban on sex discrimination in federally funded education.
Called an equal access law for women, it was an outgrowth of equal opportunity initiatives based on race that were popular in the 1960s.
But Title IX soon became the weapon of choice for feminists in government. They quickly interpreted it as requiring identical funding for female sports even when women weren’t interested and even as this decimated men’s teams. Then, they redefined “discrimination” to encompass “harassment” and “a hostile environment,” still nebulous terms that many define as subjective offenses, which are anybody’s guess, as the offense changes with the subject. This also makes healthy courtship a minefield since any romantic gesture, such as holding open a door, can offend someone and become a Title IX complaint. Then they expanded “harassment” to include alleged sexual assault, a matter of criminal law at the state level, not civil rights law from Congress. But that didn’t stop Obama education officials from directing campus Title IX offices to seek, find, and punish anyone merely accused of sexual misconduct by presuming guilt—an egregious violation of due process. Hundreds of students were suspended or expelled by what were then called campus kangaroo courts.
Biden officials continued this abuse of Title IX by redefining the law’s central term “sex” to include same-sex orientation and “gender ideology” such that homosexuals and men pretending to be women (especially on women’s sports teams) could claim a Title IX violation when others did not approve or go along.
The silver lining in this radicalization has been the inevitable pushback. Regular citizens have now woken up and are fighting back. For example, Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos reversed the abuses of the Obama administration, stopping campus kangaroo courts by issuing a formal Title IX rule that protected due process for the accused but also mandated support for any accuser. The DeVos rule received an unprecedented 125,000 public comments during the rulemaking process—most positive—showing widespread public support for ending Title IX due process nightmares. What’s more, when the DeVos rule was challenged in court, it was upheld as lawful and fair by every judge to review it.
But Biden targeted the DeVos rule out of the gate in 2021 and then devised its own regulation, which includes the redefinition of sex. Unlike the DeVos rule, however, when the Biden regulation was challenged in court, it was found unlawful and unconstitutional (as administrative overreach), findings affirmed by the United States Supreme Court last August. As a result, it’s been enjoined in 26 states but applies in the remaining 24 where no lawsuits were filed.
So America is now a Title IX patchwork, ready to be remedied by President Trump.
How?
On Inauguration Day, Trump should announce his intention to re-issue the DeVos rule and rescind the Biden regulation, citing the many federal court opinions on the latter’s unlawfulness. Trump’s Justice Department should also file Statements of Interest in the pending cases, informing the courts that the Department won’t be defending Biden’s actions.
The Trump Education Department should also declare as null and void all Title IX Resolution Agreements between the Biden Education Department and individual schools.
Many of these agreements are of highly questionable legality, as they appear to be the result of politically motivated investigations and, worse, impose conditions not authorized by law. For example, California’s Taft College was investigated for an alleged Title IX offense when faculty did not use female pronouns demanded by a male student who enrolled as a male. The faculty’s refusal to use pronouns was never a Title IX offense. The college should therefore not have even been investigated.
Worse, the resulting Resolution Agreement requires faculty to use these pronouns—what is called compelled speech and is illegal—as if Title IX required it, though Title IX does no such thing. Worse still, Biden officials knew this since they were in the process of issuing a rule that made this very change. In short, Biden officials fraudulently treated their ideological goals as law and imposed them on Taft College.
School districts are also targeted and subjected to legally questionable agreements with ideologically driven and expensive terms. The forthcoming report on the Education Department by the National Association of Scholars titled Wasteland: The Education Department’s Profligacy, Mediocrity and Radicalism, describes numerous such agreements with onerous conditions unauthorized by law and yet treated as binding legal precedent by the Biden Education Department. For example, the Resolution Agreement with the Rapid City Area Schools in South Dakota required the district to hire consultants and experts to “examine the root causes of discrimination” and to hire Diversity Directors and Directors of “Positive School Climate.”
Trump should make sure that all this gets the ax.
All that said, America should not kid itself that radicalization and the imposition of fringe sexual politics on schools are limited to Title IX. Unfortunately, sex (and race) identity politics are everywhere in American education. They lurk behind a myriad of buzzwords and phrases such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (“DEI”), “marginalized communities,” “underrepresented minorities,” and so on. Student conduct codes feature these terms along with policies on discrimination and harassment, which are variously defined and changing every day. Teachers and school staff from politicized teachers’ colleges have been fed this politicized content for years, and they feel entitled to impose it on students and unsuspecting families as part of their job.
In fact, if academic assessments are any indication, they view it as their whole job. Last month, the “Trends in International Math and Science Studies,” or TIMSS survey, was published, showing declines among American students in math and science, similar to declines documented in other areas such as English, writing skills, and reading comprehension. It is not hyperbole to say that indoctrination has replaced education in most American schools.
Trump should therefore act with confidence and resolve to shut down Title IX ideologies to restore real learning and academic excellence. He will be a hero not only to parents but to the entire country.
“Man-Made Virus, Watch Millions Die Biggest Profit Of Their Lives. Here’s Inflation, That’s Your Prize”: Striking Anthem Of Our Time
Australian medical doctor and independent artist Iyah May has released a new track titled “Karmageddon,” which sheds light on the harsh realities of Twitter wars, political division, media manipulation, out-of-control inflation, Covid bioweapon, Dr. Fauci, and corporate greed. The song reflects the turmoil the world has endured over the past five years and might as well serve as a striking anthem of our time.
Here are the lyrics to “Karmageddon” by Iyah May:
I open up my phone on a Monday morning Staring at my screen, I’m tired and a little lonely Mr. Musk, he said some shit, the left’s are angry Twitter wars and Gaza, man, it’s overwhelming
Maybe that’s how life becomes when People less important than a profit line No one cares about your dreams, just pay your tax on time Keep scrolling
Hold me near to you now Gender, guns, religion, and abortion rights You better pick a tribe and hate the other side Keep scrolling (But did you see Taylor live?)
Man-made virus, watch the millions die Biggest profit of their lives Here’s inflation, that’s your prize This is Karmageddon
Turn on the news and eat their lies Kim or Kanye? Pick a side Cancel culture, what a vibe This is Karmageddon
Corporations swear they never lie Politicians bribed for life More than war, it’s genocide This is Karmageddon
Welcome to the chaos of the times If you go left and I go right Pray we make it out alive This is Karmageddon
It’s fashion week, celebs lose ribs Balenciaga, how’s the kids? Just ask Drake, he’s losing beef Kendrick killed him in his sleep
Diss tracks about beating up your queen While women dying doesn’t cause a scene While we’re fed all these distractions Kids are killed from Israel’s actions
I’m a speak my mind Sick to death of all these crazy lies A circus for humanity’s decline We just want a peaceful life Give the people back their rights
And I’ve still got a beef ‘Cause Fauci’s laughing and we’ve been asleep And WHO’s a liar and it’s running deep Big pharma finna eat They a devil, make them weak
Man-made virus, watch the millions die Biggest profit of their lives Here’s inflation, that’s your prize This is Karmageddon
Turn on the news and eat their lies Kim or Kanye? Pick a side Cancel culture, what a vibe This is Karmageddon
Corporations swear they never lie Politicians bribed for life More than war, it’s genocide This is Karmageddon
Welcome to the chaos of the times If you go left and I go right Pray we make it out alive This is Karmageddon
On X, May said because of her controversial lyrics, “As some of you might know I am now an independent artist after I lost my manager because I didn’t change the lyrics of this song, and also left my label.”
Thank you to everyone supporting my song ‘Karmageddon’. As some of you might know I am now an independent artist after I lost my manager because I didn’t change the lyrics of this song, and also left my label. Your support means the world. If you’d like to hear the full track… pic.twitter.com/LNOlirEb2A
“Fuelled by my own despair over a divided world and deceitful corporations, I channelled my frustration into Karmageddon. My career as a doctor has been greatly impacted, and I was affected on a deep and personal level.
“For a long time, I felt isolated with my opinions. This song reflects the helplessness many of us feel in these dark times.”
Full music video:
Politically themed music has soared in popularity as the ‘Fourth Turning‘ deepens across the West…
Imagine unlocking a door in your mind and stepping onto a barren, windswept landscape – alien skies above, ancient pyramids towering in the distance, and whispers of a civilization long gone. This might sound like the plot of a science fiction novel, but it’s exactly what unfolded in a classified CIA experiment during the height of the Cold War.
Through a top-secret program known as the Stargate Project, intelligence officers turned to psychics in hopes of gaining access to inaccessible places. One such session led to an astonishing revelation: descriptions of life on Mars over a million years ago, complete with advanced beings and monumental structures. Could these accounts hold the key to understanding our own planet’s mysteries—or were they simply the product of an overactive imagination? As the once-classified files are revealed to the public, they reignite questions humanity has been asking for centuries: Are we alone? And if not, how much of our history is truly ours?
The Stargate Project: Espionage Meets the Supernatural
At the height of the Cold War, espionage wasn’t limited to gadgets, codes, and spies. The United States was racing not only against its earthly adversaries but also against the boundaries of human consciousness. Enter the Stargate Project, a CIA-backed program exploring the potential of “remote viewing,” a technique where individuals claimed to mentally perceive events, locations, or objects from great distances without physical presence.
“Remote viewing refers to a type of extra-sensorial perception that involves using the mind to ‘see’ or manipulate distant objects, people, events, or other information that are hidden from physical view,”Popular Mechanics explains. This practice was more than just speculation—it was part of a serious effort to harness the untapped potential of the human mind for intelligence purposes.
This wasn’t a fringe experiment by secretive hobbyists—it was a government-funded initiative blending espionage with the supernatural. Participants, often labeled as psychics or gifted individuals, were tasked with extraordinary missions: seeing inside secure facilities, locating hidden objects, and even uncovering secrets from other planets. The project aimed to turn thought into a weapon, hoping to outpace the Soviet Union in a battle for the mind.
In 1984, one such experiment took a surprising turn. A remote viewer, given coordinates with no prior context, described visions that defied explanation. The focus? Mars. The timeline? Over a million years ago. What followed was a vivid account of a planet that seemed alive, filled with monumental structures and intelligent beings. Was this the breakthrough the CIA hoped for, or the limits of human imagination? The story of what they found—or claimed to find—on Mars would challenge conventional thinking for decades to come.
Remote Viewing the Red Planet: A Journey Back in Time
In the dimly lit room of a classified CIA facility, a remote viewer sat silently, focusing on a set of coordinates provided by their handler. They were given no information about the location or purpose of the session. As they concentrated, an extraordinary vision unfolded—one that seemed to transcend time and space.
The remote viewer described a desolate Mars, not as it is today, but as it might have been over a million years ago. Towering dust storms raged across the surface, but the landscape was marked by massive pyramid-like structures, crumbling yet majestic, speaking of a once-great civilization. The viewer spoke of intelligent beings, tall and thin, struggling to survive in the aftermath of a cataclysmic event that had ravaged their planet.
These Martian inhabitants were described as desperate, searching for a way to escape their doomed world. Some had reportedly ventured to “safe places,” leaving behind their architectural marvels as monuments to their existence. The vividness of these accounts captivated the CIA officers present, raising questions that extended far beyond intelligence gathering. Were these glimpses a window into a forgotten past—or simply the creative workings of the human subconscious?
What made this session particularly remarkable was the level of detail: the remote viewer described the structures, the atmospheric conditions, and even the emotional state of the beings with uncanny specificity. But these revelations would spark debates, leaving many to wonder whether such visions were rooted in truth or the limitations of an experiment that strayed into the realm of the extraordinary.
Pyramids on Mars: An Alien Connection?
Among the most captivating details from the 1984 session was the description of massive pyramid-like structures scattered across the Martian surface. These were not crude formations shaped by nature but, according to the remote viewer, deliberate constructions—evidence of a once-thriving civilization. The pyramids, though weathered and ancient, were described as bearing a striking resemblance to those found on Earth, particularly in their geometric precision and imposing scale.
The idea of pyramids on Mars isn’t new; it has long fueled theories about ancient astronauts and interplanetary connections. Could these structures be linked to the pyramids on Earth? Some speculate that civilizations across the cosmos shared advanced knowledge, leaving behind similar architectural legacies. Others suggest that Earth’s ancient structures were inspired or even influenced by visitors from Mars, their knowledge passed down through myths and legends.
However, skepticism tempers such tantalizing ideas. Geologists and planetary scientists argue that what appear to be pyramids could easily be natural formations, shaped by erosion over eons. Yet, the specificity of the remote viewer’s descriptions challenges this dismissal. The pyramids were said to be part of a larger, structured environment—a city or complex left in ruins after a catastrophic event.
If these claims hold even a shred of truth, the implications are profound. Did an advanced civilization once thrive on Mars? Were they capable of space travel, and could they have influenced Earth’s early cultures? Or are these visions simply a mirror of humanity’s own longing to connect with the cosmos? As the mystery deepens, the pyramids on Mars stand as a symbolic bridge between what we know and what we may never understand.
Declassified Mysteries: Why Now?
The declassification of the Stargate Project files, including the 1984 Mars experiment, has added fuel to ongoing debates about extraterrestrial life and the limits of human understanding. But why were these files, shrouded in secrecy for decades, released now?
Some believe the timing is strategic, coinciding with growing public interest in UFOs and the search for alien life. Recent government disclosures on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) have sparked a wave of curiosity and speculation. By releasing documents from projects like Stargate, the CIA may be acknowledging the public’s demand for transparency about the unknown.
Others suggest a more pragmatic motive: the files may serve as a historical record of Cold War-era innovation and the unconventional methods pursued in the quest for an edge over adversaries. Projects like Stargate symbolize the lengths intelligence agencies were willing to go, even if the results were inconclusive or scientifically questionable.
Regardless of intent, the release of these files has reignited interest in the boundaries of what we consider possible. As new generations discover these accounts, they’re confronted with the question of how much we truly know about our universe—and how much remains hidden in the archives of history.
The timing of the declassification is also significant in the context of space exploration. With missions like NASA’s Perseverance rover uncovering new data about Mars and private companies pushing the limits of human space travel, the mysteries of the Red Planet feel closer than ever. Perhaps these revelations serve as a reminder that the answers to our greatest questions may be found in the unlikeliest places.
Reflections: What Does This Mean for Humanity?
At the heart of the Mars experiment lies a question that transcends scientific skepticism or government secrecy: What does it mean if life once existed beyond Earth? Whether viewed as a glimpse into an ancient civilization or as an imaginative projection of the human mind, the claims invite us to reconsider humanity’s place in the cosmos.
For centuries, we have gazed at the stars, searching for connections to something greater. The possibility that Mars once harbored intelligent life stirs both excitement and existential unease. If civilizations on other planets rose and fell, what lessons might their histories hold for us? Could their demise foreshadow humanity’s own challenges in preserving its world?
The 1984 session, while controversial, also highlights the power of the human imagination and its ability to explore realms far beyond our physical limitations. It bridges the gap between hard science and the metaphysical, offering a unique lens through which to view our universe.
Ultimately, these revelations are a testament to our unending curiosity and our relentless pursuit of answers to the unknown. Whether or not pyramids and civilizations once dotted the Martian landscape, the story challenges us to keep asking, exploring, and imagining. After all, the search for life beyond Earth isn’t just about what we might find—it’s about what the journey reveals about ourselves.
The Uncharted Frontiers of Mystery
The declassified CIA experiment that claimed to uncover a glimpse of life on ancient Mars is as compelling as it is divisive. From towering pyramids to civilizations grappling with survival, the remote viewing session from the Stargate Project bridges the line between science fiction and the tantalizing possibility of alien histories.
While skeptics challenge the legitimacy of such accounts, the sheer detail and imagination behind them leave room for reflection. Could these stories hint at something larger—an interconnectedness across time and space—or are they a testament to the creativity and curiosity of the human mind?
As we continue to explore Mars through rovers and satellites, the allure of these ancient claims lingers, reminding us that the universe holds countless mysteries waiting to be uncovered. Whether through scientific discovery or the power of human wonder, the answers we seek may one day reveal themselves, or they may remain forever in the realm of the unknown. Until then, Mars continues to inspire dreams, debates, and the age-old question: What if?
“Trump Is Not Wrong” – MSNBC Finally Admits Massive Spike In Illegal Immigration Under Biden
Unless you have lived under a rock or never dared to venture beyond MSNBC or CNN or the front page of the New York Times as your source of ‘news’, none of this will come as a surprise at all…
But, for those that have lived blinkered from the truth about the border for the past four years, MSNBC just sent your minds to ’11’ on the ‘cognitive dissonance’ scale as they dared to show a chart that – hold your breath here for a moment – shows a massive surge in illegal immigration during Biden’s reign (especially compared to Trump’s).
“The border was not Biden’s finest moment, frankly,” former Obama administration official Steve Rattner sheepishly admits while showing the dramatic chart, shocking his co-host on MSNBC’s Morning Joe by admitting that:
“you can see what happened here and Trump is not wrong when he talks about how border crossings were quite low.”
“They were running about 74,000 a month when he left office. And they, in fact, did shoot up. Some of it was some things Biden said and some ways that they put a moratorium, for example, on deportations.”
“But in fact, we did get up here almost to 300,000 a month,” Rattner continued.
Enjoy…
🚨Watch MSNBC’s Morning Joe show highlight a damning chart of the illegal immigration spike over the last four years under Joe Biden’s failed policies:
“The border was not Biden’s finest moment, frankly. You can see what happened here. And Trump is not wrong when he talks about… pic.twitter.com/eiqk0Wucxu
As a reminder, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas claimed that the border is secure on multipleoccasions prior to a March 2024 impeachment vote in the House of Representatives, despite the fact that the Border Patrol encountered millions of illegal immigrants since the start of fiscal year 2021, according to figures released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Americans hate racial discrimination, and they hate inequality borne of government force. However, if you try to solve the problem of inequality by engaging in Orwellian and neo-racist “discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination” (often advanced under the banners of “antiracism” and “DEI” — “diversity, equity, and inclusion”), then you will sooner or later experience the wrath of the people. The recent judicial rebuke of Nasdaq’s diversity rule adds to the drumbeat of feedback alerting corporations to this fact: If corporations want to maintain their social license to operate, then they must stop discriminating on the basis of race.
In National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) v. SEC, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s approval of Nasdaq’s “Board Diversity Rules.” I work for the National Center, and our excellent attorneys at the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) described the discredited rules as follows: “These Rules imposed gender, race and sexual orientation quotas on corporate board membership for Nasdaq-listed companies, compelling those that failed to meet their board seat quotas to explain why or face involuntary delisting from the stock exchange.”
You can read the National Center’s press release as well as NCLA’s press release for more detailed analysis of the case.
The short of it is that the SEC exceeded its statutory authority in approving the rule because the rules advanced none of the express purposes of the governing statute, but were instead a thinly veiled attempt to shame corporations into advancing the forced neo-racist social engineering that’s become so popular as “antiracism” the past few years.
In reading some of the subsequent analysis, I was particularly struck by Professor Ann Lipton’s conclusions. In part, Lipton writes that:
“I tend to agree that [the] diversity disclosure rule is not, in fact, intended to help investors price securities or even to adopt governance practices that contribute to wealth creation; it is more in the category of the kind of rule that serves a kind of signaling function, that the corporation is exercising its power responsibly and inclusively. It’s a display of self-governance and discipline, in a manner that costs corporations very little but perhaps wins them legitimacy. It benefits companies and investors, but not in the traditional manner by which the securities laws operate; it does so by contributing to their social license to operate.”
It is worth noting that Lipton – with whom I used to co-blog at the Business Law Prof Blog, and who is an excellent scholar – does not even try to defend the diversity rule with the worn out “diversity is good for the bottom line” trope, which has by now been thoroughly debunked to the point that the SEC itself could not mount a defense on that basis (though that doesn’t stop DEI advocates from continuing to claim the business case for diversity has been proven, which is a lie).
Lipton goes on, however, to argue that diversity disclosures support a corporation’s social license to operate. The problem with this assertion, however, is that it boils down to arguing that racial discrimination is good for society. But once one sees through the lovely sounding “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mantra, one is left with the unmistakable conclusion that what is going on in the name of DEI is nothing short of sorting people into buckets based on their race (and other related identity categories), and then allocating resources like jobs, promotions, and financial support on that basis. While it has indeed taken Americans some time to figure this out, they have now done so – and corporations are quite properly dumping DEI fast.
But not all corporations, of course. In reporting on the Nasdaq ruling, it has been noted that the Big 5 (the Big 3 asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, together with the Big 2 proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis) still push corporations to allocate resources on the basis of race and sex in various ways. For a more specific example, one need look no further than Goldman Sachs, which denies its IPO services to companies that don’t meet Goldman’s neo-racist social engineering vision: “In 2021, the bank upped the requirement to two diverse board members, including at least one woman.” In other words, straight white male boards don’t just go to the back of Goldman’s IPO bus, they aren’t even allowed on.
In 2020, we were told a reckoning was coming. Well, it’s now 2024 and the terms of that reckoning have changed. Corporations that continue to force “antiracist” neo-racism on their employees and other stakeholders will be left facing boycotts and lawsuits that will materially harm their bottom line. And don’t let them tell you they weren’t warned — they were.
Finally, let’s keep in mind that addressing inequality doesn’t require neo-racism. Instead, progress can be made by focusing on socio-economic status or geographic and viewpoint diversity. It’s time corporations stopped dividing us on the basis of race and got back to uniting employees around the common goal of providing the best products and services so that the poverty-eradicating engine of free market capitalism can continue to maximize the spread of prosperity.
Biden Presented With Options To Strike Iran Nuke Sites If Tehran Speeds Toward Bomb
President Biden was presented with options for a potential US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the scenario that Tehran was deemed by the intelligence community as speeding toward a bomb.
Per a Thursday Axios report citing several insider sources, the Biden admin discussions were based on “if the Iranians move towards a nuclear weapon before Jan. 20″ and came in “a meeting several weeks ago that remained secret until now.”
No final decision was made, the report noted, and was not necessarily prompted by fresh or specific intelligence of a new threat, but was part of “prudent scenario planning” related to if the Islamic Republic reaches Uranium enrichment to 90% purity before Jan. 20.
Western officials have feared that due to fast-moving events in the region, most notably Hezbollah’s leadership being decimated and the collapse of the Assad government, the Iranians could be desperate enough to pursue nuclear weapons in order to restore the security balance in the region, given Israel has clearly come out on top.
Interestingly, months ago when Israel and Iran conducted tit-for-tat direct strikes on each other, President Bidenmade it clear that the US would not back Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The internal Biden White House ‘scenario planning’ discussions were said to have taken place about a month ago. One source tried to caution that “there are currently no active discussions inside the White House about possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities,” Axios noted.
There is an international consensus that Iran has increased its Uranium enrichment to 60%, putting it within easy striking distance of being able to develop a bomb if it wanted to.
Axios has also pointed out that “Even if Iran decided to build a bomb, it would need to develop a nuclear explosive device or warhead. Israeli intelligence believes that would take at least a year.”
All of these newly revealed executive branch discussions over whether to launch a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites are taking place completely outside of Congressional debate or approval.
The last several US administrations have argued that they don’t need Congressional approval in launching such strikes, whether it be on Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Libya.
Trump in his first administration tried but failed to bring the troops occupying northeast Syria home, but deeper entanglement in striking Iran could surely draw these troops into a broader conflict. The Pentagon would in that case likely expand its deployed forces in the region as well.
Iran has long maintained it develops only peaceful nuclear energy, and there’s little doubt that after the dramatic events that unfolded in Syria, and with Hezbollah top leadership removed by Israeli attacks (especially the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah), Tehran finds itself on a back foot.
Some Israeli and Western officials believe that all of this will make Iranian leaders more desperate to ensure they have a final and ultimate defense against any threats (as in rapidly developing a nuke).
But if a soon to be inaugurated Trump were to authorize strikes on Iranian facilities, this would also obviously violate his frequent vows to his voters to not start new wars in the Middle East. The reality is that even ‘limited’ strikes still constitute an act of war. The potential for runaway escalation involving the US, Iran, and Israel would be a much bigger likelihood.
The Australian government’s attempt to ram through legislation to combat misinformation online has been blocked after the Greens party announced it would not support the controversial bill.
“We are concerned this bill doesn’t actually do what it needs to do when it comes to stopping the deliberate mass distribution of false and harmful information,” said Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
This unexpected move is said to be the final nail in the coffin for the bill that intended to grant the media watchdog unprecedented regulatory powers to oversee digital content and determine what is ‘misinformation.’
A Domino Effect
During this week, an interesting display of parliamentary dynamics unfolded as an array of Senators announced they would oppose the bill, one by one.
Senators Lidia Thorpe, Tammy Tyrell, David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie, Gerard Rennick, Fatima Payman, and others declared their opposition.
Their reasons varied from concerns over government overreach, and vague definitions of misinformation, to the implications for political discourse and the potential for misuse. Each statement chipped away at the bill’s support, creating a domino effect.
An urgent call to action resulted in significant public outcry. Australians, concerned about their digital rights, flooded senators with emails, petitions, and social media campaigns.
The sheer volume of these communications likely played a crucial role in shaping the Senators’ views.
The vigorous debate also garnered international attention.
Michael Shellenberger, an American author and free speech campaigner, visited Australia to warn that these “totalitarian” laws would have implications for democracy, and blur the line between regulating harmful content and stifling dissent.
Nov 20, 2024 – Michael Shellenberger on Sky News Australia
According to Shellenberger, misinformation should be countered with more and better information, not through suppression or censorship.
Elon Musk, whose influence in the digital sphere is undeniable, especially after taking the helm of X, expressed similar views, and has been vocal about his disdain for what he perceives as “overreach” in digital governance, labelling the failed bill as “fascist.”
Digital ID for Under 16s
It has not quelled the government’s enthusiasm for its proposed ban of social media access for individuals under 16. This bill, which introduces a mandatory age verification process, has implications for digital identity and privacy.
The rapid legislative push on Thursday only allowed a 24-hour window for public submissions, a move to fast-track the controversial legislation without due public scrutiny.
The bill would require all Australians to undergo identity verification to use social media, raising alarms about the collection and potential misuse of personal data. The process could involve gathering biometric data, posing a risk for data breaches or misuse.
Today, Musk described the legislation as a “backdoor way to control access to the internet,” which promises to punish platforms, including X, with steep fines if they allow children under age 16 to hold social media accounts.
The combination of these legislative proposals (the misinformation bill, and the digital ID for under-16s), paints a picture of a government intent on tightening control over what you can say and read online.
What Happens Now?
After this week’s news, the Labor government must now retreat and reassess.
It could decide to abandon the legislative approach altogether and focus on other means like public education campaigns or working with social media platforms on voluntary codes of practice. But this is unlikely.
The government will most probably go back to the drawing board, either to revise the bill with more stringent protections for free speech or to explore alternative, less direct methods of addressing misinformation, hoping to revive the bill in the new year.
A new bill introduced to Florida’s state legislature intends to prohibit illegal immigrants from being able to utilize the civil court system to file lawsuits and other legal actions.
It was filed in Florida’s State House of Representatives by Rep. Joel Rudman on Dec. 27, arguing that someone who enters the country illegally has no legal standing to file lawsuits, be it for a slip and fall or malpractice.
“If you are in Florida illegally, then you should not have access to our courts,” he said on X.
”You have no legal standing to sue anyone here, since you were not even supposed to be here. American citizens and legal immigrants have had enough.”
The Republican argued in a press release that the justice system was already “drowning under a sea of frivolous lawsuits,” and Americans could not afford illegal immigrants the chance to “use our courts as their free lottery ticket.”
This bill is only limited to civil court, meaning they would retain their rights if a crime were committed against them.
There is no companion bill in the state Senate at the time of this article’s publication.
Rudman stepped down from his seat in Tallahassee on Jan. 1 to take his shot at running in Florida’s First Congressional District’s special election to replace former Rep. Matt Gaetz in Washington, D.C. He will be going up against several candidates, including Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, Jimmy Patronis, who has already secured President-elect Donald Trump’s endorsement.
However, Republicans hold a supermajority in both the Florida legislature, which suggests the bill like this will easily reach Gov. Ron DeSantis’s desk, considering the GOP’s stance on illegal immigration.
The Epoch Times has reached out to Florida’s Democratic Party for comment on this bill.
Rudman also mentioned in his press release that he was the husband of a legal immigrant and said his state welcomes immigrants who come legally through proper channels.
If passed, the bill will go into effect July 1.
The Florida House of Representatives has yet to release its schedule for January as of this article’s publication.
According to the Florida Senate’s website, all requests for general bill drafts, as well as companion bills, must be submitted by 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 25.
Concerns over terrorism are intensifying in the wake of the Bourbon Street massacre and the Las Vegas Cybertruck bombing. Adding to the anxiety, police are now investigating a potential bomb in a tractor-trailer on a major highway in South Carolina.
Local media WSPA reports all lanes of Interstate 85 are blocked in both directions between exits 42 and 44 near White Horse Road in Greenville County.
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division confirmed to WSPA that bomb squad personnel are responding to a potential bomb inside a tractor-trailer. Details are limited.
“Situation unfolding in Greenville Co South Carolina that’s closed I-85 | Sources tell me it involves an 18-wheeler. Driver apparently pulled over and stated he has a bomb. Multiple agency incident,” WXIA’s Cody Alcorn wrote on X.
Situation unfolding in Greenville Co South Carolina that’s closed I-85 | Sources tell me it involves an 18-wheeler. Driver apparently pulled over and stated he has a bomb. Multiple agency incident. Update as I get additional details. pic.twitter.com/aOgyin1ITT
