Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The University of Delaware on Dec. 16 settled with NASA after allegedly failing to disclose a professor’s ties to and support from the Chinese regime.

In 2020, NASA awarded the university a grant to establish a research center focused on the use of satellites to collect weather, climate, and ocean data, to better understand how sea-level rise affects U.S. coastlines.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, the university certified that no funds from the NASA grant would be “used to participate, collaborate, or coordinate with the People’s Republic of China.” However, the university allegedly failed to disclose that the center’s lead researcher, Xiao-Hai Yan, had significant ties to Chinese institutions and funding while the grant was active.

The settlement revealed that between June 2020 and August 2023, Yan was simultaneously a faculty member at Xiamen University, one of the 75 institutions directly controlled by China’s Ministry of Education. During this period, Yan also applied for and received funding from the National Science Foundation of China and China’s State Oceanic Administration.

Additionally, Yan was a participant in China’s Thousand Talents Program, an initiative offering lucrative financial benefits and research advantages to recruit scientists from abroad to bolster China’s economic and military development. The program has raised national security and academic integrity concerns in the United States and has prompted scores of federal investigations and prosecutions over recent years.

The university agreed to pay $715,580 to the U.S. government to resolve the allegations but did not admit to any wrongdoing.

The university said it is “proud of its strong record of compliance” in overseeing sponsored research and remains committed to “promoting and safeguarding the responsible pursuit of scientific research.”

“The university relies, in part, on the candor and complete disclosures of individuals involved in the grant process,” a spokesperson said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “As noted in the release, this settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by the university, but rather a strategic decision to avoid costly and distracting litigation.”

The settlement was a coordinated effort between the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware and NASA’s Office of Inspector General, the space agency’s internal watchdog.

“Federal law requires universities, institutions, and researchers to make disclosures, including certain foreign affiliations, when applying for grants so that the granting agencies can assess whether to fund their research and development,” David Weiss, U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, said in a statement.

The FBI has detailed how the Chinese government uses expert recruitment programs, such as the Thousand Talents Program, to attract individuals working or studying abroad who have access to high-priority research or proprietary technologies. The FBI estimates that China operates more than 200 similar initiatives, with some funded unwittingly by U.S. taxpayers.

A 2019 Senate subcommittee report also highlighted numerous instances of misconduct by Thousand Talents participants. These include downloading sensitive research files before leaving for China, falsifying information on U.S. grant applications, and failing to disclose funding received from Beijing.

One of the most high-profile cases in recent years involved Xiang Haitao, a former researcher at Monsanto. The Thousand Talents participant was arrested in November 2019 after returning to the United States from China, where he had worked on using a proprietary U.S. technology to boost farm output. In 2022, Xiang was sentenced to 29 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $150,000 fine for conspiring to commit economic espionage.

Another widely reported case was that of Charles Lieber, former chair of Harvard University’s chemistry department. Lieber was arrested on campus in 2020 and charged with lying to federal investigators about his involvement in the Thousand Talents Program and his undisclosed ties to the Wuhan University of Technology. In April 2023, he was sentenced to two days in jail with two years of supervised release and received a $50,000 fine.

On Friday we featured a tongue-in-cheek headline, but which is sadly all too literal and true: Syrian Leader With $10M Bounty On His Head Meets With Delegation From Country That Put The $10M Bounty On His Head.

US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf led the delegation along with Daniel Rubenstein, who is expected to stay in Damascus as America’s top diplomat there, as they met with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani in Damascus.

Damn that Al Qaeda makeover was fast! pic.twitter.com/avLQaM1UzH

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) December 20, 2024

“The meeting took place and was positive, and positive results will emerge from it,” AFP cited a representative from HTS as saying.

The meeting focused on a ‘vision’ for the new Syria and officials discussed sanctions, the thorny issue of the $10 million reward, and locating missing US citizens in Syria.

It was only within a mere hours of the meeting that the US side decided to remove the $10 million bounty for the killing or capture of Jolani, who merely years ago was a full-fledged commander in ISIS, and subsequently a founder of al-Qaeda in Syria.

…he likes kittens, long walks on the beach, and spooning his 10 wives at night. Also, he cried during The Notebook…

“The US has scrapped a $10m (£7.9m) reward for the arrest of Syria’s de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, following meetings between senior diplomats and representatives from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS),” BBC wrote just on the heels of the talks.

This is the same man who fought for al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), a group which targeted and killed American troops.

State Department removes Jolani’s $10 million bounty after just one visit to Damascus.

Reminder, this guy went to fight in Iraq alongside al Qaeda to kill U.S. soldiers after being inspired by 9/11.

But hey, one visit from @StateDept folks is all it takes. pic.twitter.com/h4ByTD0wTV

— Diliman Abdulkader (@D_abdulkader) December 21, 2024

Nonetheless, the US delegation described that they are seeing signs of ‘moderate’ policies from the Al-Qaeda linked leader:

“We’ve been hearing this for some time, some very pragmatic and moderate statements on various issues, from women’s rights to protection of, you know, equal rights for all communities, etc,” Leaf told reporters. “Again, it was a good first meeting. We will judge by deeds, not just by words. Deeds are the critical thing.”

We have to ask: Would this fly in a US court of law?… 

…”your honor, I swear even though I recently had an ISIS phase and later I was founder of al-Qaeda in Syria, I have reformed myself and I am ‘moderate’!…”

“am definitely so over my al-Qaeda phase your honor… promise.”

Jon Stewart introduces the new and improved Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, who is definitely over his Al Qaeda phase pic.twitter.com/zKWK6o3dFZ

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) December 10, 2024

Authored by Bradley Smith via RealClearPolitics,

The reelection of President Donald Trump could serve as a historic turning point for free speech in America. President Trump has said he will investigate censorship practices by the federal government, end the rampant disrespect for First Amendment rights on our college campuses, and take on Big Tech’s Orwellian policing of speech on the Internet. If successful, these efforts would make the First Amendment stronger than ever before.

Yet President Trump’s opponents will not simply stand by and watch as he dismantles their carefully crafted censorship machine. Controlling who gets to speak and what can be said is essential to the left’s dominance over our institutions. They will not give up such an important source of their power without a fight.

To ensure the success of Trump’s free speech agenda, the right must anticipate and prepare for the left’s inevitable attacks. Fortunately, their methods are not hard to predict. In fact, Democrats tipped their hand during the campaign.

Back when the party’s out-of-touch leadership thought Kamala Harris would propel them to victory, they set about making plans to silence opposition to their agenda once in office. At the Democratic National Convention, Sen. Chuck Schumer promised sweeping changes to elections, voting, and campaign finance if Democrats won control of Congress and the White House. All of these efforts would slant the political playing field further in the left’s favor.

Among the bills was legislation that would strip Americans of their privacy when supporting nonprofit groups that speak out on hot button issues like abortion, crime, the border, or extreme gender politics. The importance of this provision should not be underestimated.

The left calls it “transparency” when they publicly expose a private citizen’s personal information, including their name and home address, but Americans know it better as doxxing. They also know the purpose is not good government, but power politics. Exposing donors allows the left to build enemies’ lists and harass anyone who backs the “wrong” cause.

Harris, who co-sponsored the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate, has her own long record of attacking conservative donors and journalists. As California Attorney General, her demand that nonprofits expose their confidential donor lists to her office led to lawsuits and a rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court. The First Amendment protects the right to give privately, as the justices reminded her.

Now that the election is over, Democrats’ designs for regulating speech and exposing conservative donors may form the heart of their resistance strategy to splinter the Trump coalition. We have seen this movie before.

After the fight over Obamacare sparked a massive conservative movement known as the Tea Party, the left painted targets on the backs of the organizations and donors at its heart. IRS bureaucrats began grilling conservative groups about their activities and intentionally slow-walked their applications for nonprofit status. The massive targeting campaign succeeded in suppressing grassroots conservative activism in the run-up to the 2012 elections, where Democrats made gains.

Yet Democrats do not even need to control the White House to target conservative donors. Threats can arise from inside federal agencies like the IRS, or from state legislation or regulatory actions, or even from unscrupulous media aided by leaks and hacking of confidential donor data. President Trump himself saw his tax returns illegally leaked in a politically-motivated scheme.

Organizations that are successful in promoting conservative policies have also seen coordinated campaigns to bully their donors into ending their support. These harassment campaigns are one of the tactics that allowed the left to seize control of corporate America. Today, many companies pay a heavy price for any public association with the right.

America First organizations and citizens are more than familiar with this kind of discrimination. This time, however, they must not merely persist through it but fight back and defeat it. If not, the left’s control over our institutions will soon reemerge, strong as ever, despite our best efforts.

The solution is simple: Ensure every American can freely, safely, and privately support the organizations that represent their values and beliefs. We must end the ability of bureaucrats and political operatives to spy on donors and nonprofits.

If the Trump coalition can do this and protect its own, it can achieve its bold free speech agenda – and more.

Bradley Smith is chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, a former chairman of the FEC, and a professor of law at Capital University.

Starting weeks ago Washington had threatened the Republic of Georgia with “consequences” amid accusations of rigged elections, after the ‘Russia friendly’ Georgian Dream Party swept parliamentary elections.

And this month, 53-year old Mikheil Kavelashvili of Georgian Dream party was named president after 224 out of 225 members of Georgia’s electoral college voted him in (which the main opposition groups boycotted). Large pro-EU protests have all the while a mainstay in the capital of Tbilisi. The United States and European Union are loudly backing the protesters also amid the usual claims of ‘Russian interference’ in favor of governing authorities.

More unrest and large protests are expected given Kavelashvili’s inauguration is set for December 29. Police have been deploying riot control methods against larger and larger crowds all this month.

Western media describes Kavelashvili as “far right” abd as a critic of the West, as well as ‘conspiratorial’ given he has in the recent past claimed that Western interests are seeking to drive Georgia into conflict with Russia.

Late this past week the US and UK have begun to make good on their promises of consequences for the new government, citing an ongoing crackdown of the pro-EU protests. Senior officials in the Georgian government are being targeted by sanctions unveiled by the US and UK on Thursday. 

“The United States strongly condemns the Georgian authorities’ ongoing, brutal and unjustified violence against Georgian citizens, including peaceful protesters, media members, human rights activists and opposition figures,” US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller announced.

The US Treasury described that top Georgian officials will have any assets or property held in the United States blocked, and most financial transactions involving these assets will be barred. 

As for the UK, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has claimed that there is “shocking violence” against protesters, despite little evidence beyond what’s typical for such street demonstrations and clashes with riot police.

Things seem quite peaceful actually, with little in the way of a police crackdown, which has just been sporadic in past weeks…

The united Megrelian, Rachvelian and Kartlelian (Kartli origin) march will now pass the Khorumi martial dance march and they’ll proceed to the main Rustaveli rally. Today, on day 24, there have been at least 22 different marches.
New elections! #GeorgiaProtests
📷 Bachana Sajaia pic.twitter.com/BhwbnuSy9v

— Marika Mikiashvili 🇬🇪🇺🇦🇪🇺 (@Mikiashvili_M) December 21, 2024

Lammy called out the Georgian government and Dream Party for an ongoing “an egregious attack on democracy, and the Georgian people’s right to exercise their fundamental freedoms.”

“Our action today shows that the UK stands with the people of Georgia and will consider all options to ensure those responsible are held to account,” he said, announcing the UK sanctions which were coordinated with Washington.

The dividing lines for Georgia’s current crisis, which has seen the Dream Party solidify complete control of the government – but with unrest in the streets – is much like Ukraine’s political divide in 2014. But let’s hope the situation doesn’t turn to open conflict involving the US or Russia (akin to the disastrous war in Ukraine), which is something officials in Tbilisi have long been worried about.

Although costs vary from family to family, two working parents spend an average of around $23,000 per year raising one child in the United States.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, illustrates the cost of raising a child by state, based on data compiled by SmartAsset as of February 2024.

Methodology

SmartAsset used the MIT Living Wage Calculator to compare the living costs of a household with two working adults and one child to those of a childless household with two working adults. Costs include expenses for food, housing, childcare, healthcare, transportation, and other necessities.

Massachusetts Tops the List

Massachusetts has the highest annual costs for raising a child, at $35,841 per year. Mississippi has the lowest annual costs, at $16,151 per year.

Regardless of the state, childcare is the highest expense, followed by additional housing and food costs.

Housing costs include expenses for shelter (e.g., mortgage payments, property taxes, rent, and insurance), utilities (gas, electricity, fuel, cellphone, and water), and household furnishings and equipment. Childcare costs include education expenses, daycare tuition, babysitting, other childcare costs, and tuition for private schools.

These expenses do not account for the cost of a college education, which can add significantly to the overall financial burden.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out this graphic, which ranks the income a family needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Powell & A Government Shutdown Hits Stocks

Last week, we noted the ongoing market churn that could last into this week’s Fed meeting. To wit:

“That certainly seemed the case this past week, with the market trading being fairly sloppy. Attempts to push the market higher were repeatedly met with sellers, and we saw a rotation from over-owned to under-owned assets. Notably, that selling pressure arrived as expected, and while such could persist until early next week, we should be getting close to the end of the distribution and rebalancing process. The good news is that the recent consolidation paves the way for ‘Santa Claus to visit Broad and Wall.”

That process continued as expected this past week but became violent on Wednesday following the Federal Reserve meeting. While the Fed cut rates as expected, the market shock came from the lift in its outlook for interest rates in 2025 by a half percentage point. The market is assuming that the Fed is giving up on the idea that inflation will return to the 2% target next year, an idea that they had confidence in as recently as September. That more hawkish outlook undermined the view that elevated valuations were justified by easier monetary conditions, which now seems to be reversing. We suspect that this view is rather short-sighted, and given the economic dynamics both abroad and in the U.S., slower economic growth will lead to a “dovish” pivot by the Fed in the first half of 2025.

The markets also struggled with concerns about a Government shutdown. As we discussed in October 2023, shutdowns are NOT a threat to the market in the long term. To wit:

“What is critical to understand about Government shutdowns is that mandatory spending (social security, welfare, interest on the debt) continues as needed. Shutdowns are primarily about discretionary spending. Such is why it mainly involves Government employment and the shuttering of national parks and monuments. According to Goldman Sachs, the shutdown would have only impacted about 2% of Federal spending overall. Notice that the vast majority of Government spending is directly a function of the social welfare system and interest on the debt.”

Please note that during a Government shutdown, all MANDATORY spending continues. In other words, the government WILL NOT default on its debt, and social security payments will continue, despite rhetoric to the contrary.

Furthermore, market reactions to government shutdowns have become increasingly muted. The reason is that the markets have learned that funding typically arrives at the 11th hour via a ‘continuing resolution’ to provide temporary funding through the next political event, such as midterm elections, inauguration, etc. While these short-term spending bills eventually translate into longer-term spending bills, the real problem is that continuing resolutions (CRs) increase spending by 8% annually. Such is why debt has exploded since Congress stopped passing budgets in 2009 under President Obama and opted for CRs. The debt surge is the direct result of automatically compounding 8% annual spending increases plus additional spending.

However, as shown, government shutdowns, if they occur, can temporarily impact markets, but the event tends to be mild and short-lived.

Nonetheless, the market has triggered a short-term MACD sell signal, which warned investors that some “event” could exert downward pressure on stocks. As noted, the Fed and “Government Shutdown” drama sufficiently triggered sellers as portfolio rebalancing and distributions concluded. With relative strength oversold on Friday, the setup for a reflexive rally into year-end has become a much higher-probability event. However, the ongoing sell signal is deep enough to limit whatever reflexive rally does arrive. Such is particularly true as money flows have deteriorated over the last few weeks.

While we still expect a rally into year-end, as we will discuss, there is a not-so-insignificant possibility of further turmoil. We suggest continuing to manage risk, and with significant gains already booked for this year, there is little need to stretch for further returns at this juncture.

Will Santa Claus Visit Broad And Wall?

Will “Santa still visit Broad and Wall?” That is the question on everyone’s mind. As we will discuss, there are certainly reasons to be concerned, but let’s start with the market statistics and reasons behind the fabled year-end rally.

The actual Wall Street saying is, “If Santa Claus should fail to call, bears may come to Broad & Wall.” The Santa Claus Rally, also known as the December effect, is a term for more frequent than average stock market gains as the year winds down. However, as is always the case with data, average returns sometimes differ from reality.

Stock Trader’s Almanac explored why end-of-year trading has a directional tendency. The Santa Claus indicator is pretty simple. It looks at market performance over a seven-day trading period – the last five trading days of the current trading year and the first two trading days of the New Year. The stats are compelling.

“The stock market has risen 1.48% on average during the 7 trading days in question since both 1950 and 1969. Over the 7 trading days in question, stock prices have historically risen 76% of the time, which is far more than the average performance over a 7-day period.“

The end of the year tends to be strong for a couple of reasons. First, professional managers tend to “window dress” portfolios for year-end reporting purposes. Secondly, given that many professional funds make year-end distributions, there tends to be a need to rebalance portfolios. The following graph in orange shows aggregate cumulative returns by day count for the December months we analyzed. In the graph, we plotted returns alongside daily aggregated average returns by day. Unsurprisingly, the recent sloppy trading and correction this past week all coincide with the historical norms of December.

Visually, one notices the “sweet spot” in the two graphs between the 10th and 14th trading days. The 14th trading day, in most cases, falls within a few days of Christmas.

However, there is always a risk.

Did The Fed Steal Christmas?

While there is a decently high probability that stock prices will climb heading into year-end, there is a not-so-insignificant 24% chance they won’t. With the substantial November advance and new highs into early December, the question is whether anyone is “left to buy?” As noted, not every December has a “Santa Claus Rally.” 2018, as shown, is a good reminder that once in a while, investors receive a lump of coal in their stockings. At that time, the Federal Reserve was on a rate hiking campaign and insisted that it was “nowhere near the neutral rate” on monetary policy. Furthermore, since the market had declined steeply since early September, sentiment and investor positioning were very negative.

Interestingly, December 2024 has some of the same backdrops as September 2018.

First, the S&P 500 rallied strongly this year, approaching our year-end target of 6000. That rally has led to a sharp increase in bullish sentiment between retail and professional investors. As shown, U.S. equity allocations are at record highs among professional investors.

Furthermore, like in 2018, when retail equity allocations and valuations were elevated, investor allocations are at the highest on record, coinciding with the second-highest valuation levels.

There is also an abundance of optimism about future stock prices, just like in 2018.

What is important to remember about 2018 is that investor optimism was fine until the Fed said it “was nowhere near the neutral rate.” Of course, following a 20% decline and two months later, the Fed was magically at that neutral rate.

Today, investor exuberance is tied to a further accommodative easing in 2025. However, like in 2018, the Fed suggested it isn’t near its “neutral rate,” as shown in its latest projections. While the “long-run” projections are still for economic growth of 1.8% (down from 2.0% and 1.9% previously) and inflation of 2%, the short-term outlooks for 2025 were adjusted modestly higher. That uptick disappointed investors even though the end goals remain the same, which will require Fed funds to adjust lower. (Side note: The Fed’s projections are almost always too optimistic, which suggests the recent bout of hawkishness will give way to a dovish reversal next year.)

The adjustment to the Fed’s view was minimal from an investing perspective. However, the market reacted violently because the combination of exuberance and overbought factors created the perfect environment for a reversal.

Technically Speaking

First, while the market rallied into year-end on many optimistic assumptions, breadth has been deteriorating noticeably. From the NYSE Advance-Decline line to the percentage of stocks trading above their respective 50 and 200-DMA, overall participation has declined rapidly. While such does not mean a market crash is imminent, such previous deterioration has eventually coincided with short-term corrections and consolidations. Unsurprisingly, that is exactly what happened as the collision of the Fed and a looming shutdown gave sellers the push they needed.

Secondly, the market was, and is, technically extended on many levels after the past two years of excess returns. The monthly market analysis shows the S&P 500 is significantly overbought on a relative strength basis, deviated from the long-term mean, and pushing well into the top of its bullish trend from the 2009 lows. While we discussed the same factors in the middle of 2021, it took several months before the market gave way and corrected the excesses in 2022. Given the market’s current momentum, we suspect the bullish run will likely last into the first half of next year but could be sooner if earnings expectations decline.

What is crucial to understand is that these technical extremes are just the “kindling” for a correction. To “ignite” the correction, some event must provide the catalyst. In this case, it was the more hawkish pivot by the Fed and the threat of a shutdown. As is always the case, the event that causes a sharp unwinding of the market, like we saw on Wednesday, is always unexpected. The “surprise factor” causes the sudden shift in market expectations for earnings growth and outlooks. The risk going forward is “if” the Fed is correct in its outlook, the more optimistic outlook for earnings expectations will need to be reassessed. If that is the case, the market will decline to reduce valuations for a new reality.

Given that current valuations are at the second-highest level on record, such an event would seem more likely. Notably, short-term valuations are solely a function of sentiment. Investors are paying well above the earnings growth that is occurring. Historically, earnings have disappointed those expectations.

Does any of this mean that “Santa Won’t Visit Broad And Wall?” Of course not. However, I would not completely dismiss the risk of “getting a lump of coal” this year.

Given the uncertainty, both into year-end and 2025, how should we approach it?

Calculating The Madness

Let me repeat something that seems apropos:

Sir Isaac Newton once said:

“I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people..” 

As we head into year-end, we will navigate the risk of overly extended and bullish markets against the seasonally strong end-of-year period. 

We believe that capital preservation and risk management lead to better outcomes over the long term. However, managing risk can be frustrating in the short run as the “Fear Of Missing Out” overrides common sense and logic. 

If you disagree, that is okay.

When the opportunity presents itself and the “madness has subsided,” these are the questions we will ask ourselves before we add exposure to portfolios:

1. What is the expected return from current valuation levels?  (___%)
2. If I am wrong, what is my potential downside, given my current risk exposure?  (___%)
3. What actions should I take now if #2 exceeds #1?  (#2 – #1 = ___%)

How you answer those questions is entirely up to you.

What you do with the answers is also up to you.

We are all trying to answer the question, “How much of the ‘narrative’ already got priced into the market?”

By looking at the data, it would be easy to assume the answer is “much.”

While bullishness prevails, this is a great time to set aside the narratives and return our focus to the basic portfolio management rules.

How We Are Trading It

Since we have our “stockings hung by the chimney with care,” we can stuff them with a few essential investment guidelines to follow as we approach year-end.

• Investing is not a competition. There are no prizes for winning but severe penalties for losing.
• Emotions have no place in investing. You are generally better off doing the opposite of what you “feel” you should be doing.
• The ONLY investments you can “buy and hold” provide an income stream with a return of principal function.
• Market valuations (except at extremes) are very poor market timing devices.
• Fundamentals and Economics drive long-term investment decisions – “Greed and Fear” drive short-term trading. Knowing what type of investor you are determines the basis of your strategy.
• “Market timing” is impossible– managing risk exposure is logical and possible.
• Investment is about discipline and patience. Lacking either one can be destructive to your investment goals.
• There is no value in daily media commentary– turn off the television and save yourself the mental capital.
• Investing is no different from gambling—both are “guesses” about future outcomes based on probabilities. The winner is the one who knows when to “fold” and when to go “all in.”
• No investment strategy works all the time. The trick is knowing the difference between a bad investment strategy and one temporarily out of favor.

While anxiously anticipating the arrival of the “Santa Claus Rally,” we must also remember the lesson of 2018.

Nothing is guaranteed.

Ukraine’s drone and missile attacks deep inside Russia have already been a near daily occurrence, but now these projectiles are reaching further and further into Russia, often utilize Western-supplied weapon systems.

“Ukraine brought the war into the heart of Russia Saturday morning with drone attacks that local authorities said damaged residential buildings in the city of Kazan in the Tatarstan region, over 600 miles (1,000 kilometers) from the front line,” The Associated Press reports Saturday.

The regional governor said that eight drones attacked the city, with anti-air defenses only able to shoot down one. The others hit residential buildings and an industrial facility. 

No casualties were indicated by emergency services, but the attacks halted flights at Kazan’s airport, and all public gatherings were canceled due to the threat of more possible inbound drones.

The last several days have seen deadly attacks on Rostov and Kursk regions. The several waves of assaults involved US-provided ATACMS, UK-provided Storm Shadow missiles, as well as a HIMARS attack which occurred Friday.

The Russian Defense Ministry said: “These actions by the Kiev regime supported by Western handlers won’t be left unanswered.”

Dramatic video shows one drone smashing into the upper floors of high-rise building. The footage was verified by the AP:

BREAKING:

7 Ukrainian suicide drones have struck targets in Russia’s 5th largest city Kazan.

It’s located 700 km east of Moscow pic.twitter.com/lClxvK8iAA

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) December 21, 2024

President Putin has previously warned that “decision-making centers” in Kiev could be hit, but it appears that has yet to happen on any large-scale, even nearly three years into the war.

There’s also the looming threat that Moscow could launch more Oreshnik hypersonic missiles armed with conventional warheads, which could do major damage. Clearly these ‘options’ have been largely held back thus far.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

One of the most consistent elements of the identity politics practiced by the left is its selectivity. Whether in politics or higher education, the outrage that comes from allegedly racist or insensitive comments is confined to targets on the right.

A case in point is the deafening silence after a diatribe by Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, during which she accused Hispanic voters of having a “slave mentality” and said that they “can barely vote.”

There was no vaporous segment on The View or condemnations on the floor from members.

Crockett has been celebrated in left-wing publications such as Vanity Fair for schooling her colleagues, which she describes as “old as sh*t.”

She offered Vanity Fair her “distilled summary of what happens within the Latino community.” Not surprisingly, it is identity politics with a race edge:

“I’ve not run into that with the Asian community. I’ve not run into that with the African community. I’ve not run into that with the Caribbean community. I’ve only run into it with Hispanics. When they think of ‘illegals,’ they think of, you know, maybe people that came out of the cartels and that kind of, like, the criminal-type book or whatever. It’s insane.”

“It almost reminds me of what people would talk about when they would talk about kind of like ‘slave mentality’ and the hate that some slaves would have for themselves. It’s almost like a slave mentality that they have. It is wild to me when I hear how anti-immigrant they are as immigrants, many of them. I’m talking about people that literally just got here and can barely vote that are having this kind of attitude.”

The attack on Hispanic voters as including people who “literally just got here and can barely vote” did not even generate objections from many Democratic Hispanic groups. Imagine if Trump or a conservative commentator made this comment.

Ironically, just before the election, I wrote how recent immigrants seemed to have a particularly strong connection to our defining and collective values. That does not appear a view shared by the congresswoman.

Crockett was, if anything, inclusive in her attacks based on gender and race. She also attacked black men and women for voting for Trump. She just dismissed black men as hating women: “I’m going to chalk up to misogyny.”

What is unimaginable is that any woman or person of color could vote on the merits against the Democrats.

Notably, after her loss, Hillary Clinton offered the same attacks on women as voting against her only because they are weak and self-loathing.

She claimed that Kamala, who notoriously avoided interviews and could not think of “a thing she would do differently” from Biden, “ran a flawless campaign.” The problem is again self-hating women and minorities, adding, “I don’t trust White women. I said, I’m just telling you, and I think you need to have conversations with your sisters, because they are the group that failed Hillary Clinton.”

The claim that Hispanics “can barely vote” would not be tolerated from someone on the right. It is reminiscent of the controversy involving Democratic lawyer and former Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias over what some called inherently racist comments about Georgia voters. Elias argued that Georgia voters could not be expected to be able to read their driver’s licenses correctly — a statement that seemed to refer to minority voters who would be disproportionately impacted by such a requirement.

What is striking about the Vanity Fair article is that Democrats continued to rely on identity politics despite every indication that it was not working. Now, after losing both houses and the White House, they are doubling down on identity politics.

Outgoing Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Jaime Harrison used his farewell address to warn Democrats not to abandon identity politics as the touchstone of future campaigns.

Two days after Swedish police and Chinese authorities boarded the Yi Peng 3, a 225-meter bulk carrier suspected of sabotaging undersea fiber optic cables in the Baltic Sea last month, the vessel restarted engines early Saturday morning and resumed transiting the Danish Straits.

Sal Mercogliano, a professor at Campbell University and the host of the What Is Going On With Shipping? show on YouTube, stated on X that Yi Peng “is underway and heading out of the Kattegat toward the North Sea toward the Suez.” 

Data compiled by Bloomberg confirms Yi Peng has been underway since early Saturday morning. 

Mercogliano noted that Swedish police and Chinese investigators boarded the vessel earlier last week.

He said, “The Swedes were allowed to observe the questioning,” adding, “They have not released any findings from their investigation.” 

Also, Mercogliano cited ship tracking data that shows Yi Peng 3 is being escorted by at least one Danish warship. 

The Swedish police boarded the ship in conjunction with Chinese investigators (the flag of registry).

The Swedes were allowed to observe the questioning.

They have not released any findings from their investigation.

Yi Peng 3 is being escorted by Danish P525. pic.twitter.com/TMGmjQoasw

— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴‍☠️ (@mercoglianos) December 21, 2024

Here’s our reporting on the ongoing situation:

• Baltic Undersea Data Cable ‘Disruption’ May Take Two Weeks To Repair

• Danish Navy Hunts Down Chinese Ship Suspected Of ‘Sabotaging’ Baltic Sea Cables

• NATO Flotilla Surrounds Chinese Ship Suspected Of Sabotaging EU Undersea Baltic Cables

• Swedish Police Board Chinese Bulk Carrier Suspected Of Undersea Cable Sabotage

One X user suggested, “Hmmm…. Perhaps it should have an escort so it takes the deep water route, rather than heading towards all those cables in the English Channel…” 

Authored by Eugyppius via eugyppius.com,

German democracy, which has existed undeterred since 1949 but is somehow always shaken to its foundations whenever anybody sings the wrong song or holds a televised debate with the wrong person, is once again on life support.

Christian Lindner, head of the market-liberal Free Democrats, did much to trigger the present catastrophe on December 1st, when he said that the Free Republic should “dare more Milei and more Musk”. Because there is little distinction between praising Milei and Musk and demanding the return of National Socialism, there ensued a brief period of establishment hyperventilation.

Less than a week later, CDU chief and probable future German Chancellor Friedrich Merz did his part to denounce Lindner’s political wrongthink in a statement to Deutschlandfunk:

So neither the Argentinian President nor, how shall I put it, the American entrepreneur Elon Musk – let’s put it plainly – are role models for German politics in my view. I don’t see where we can find similarities in German politics. What Christian Lindner meant will probably remain his secret.

The next day, Merz repeated the same denunciations, only more harshly, explaining to one of our extremely adult and far-sighted pantsuit talkshow hosts that “To be honest, I was completely appalled that Christian Lindner made that comparison.” Milei, Merz said, is “really trampling on the people there”.

Yesterday, all of this came to the notice of the (honestly rather tiresome) influencer Naomi Seibt, who posted a video statement to X rehearsing all of this old news to her largely American audience.

🚨🇩🇪CHANCELLOR FRONTRUNNER SLAMS MUSK & MILEI❗️

The presumptive next chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) is horrified by the idea that Germany should follow Elon Musk’s and Javier Milei’s example.

He staunchly rejects a pro-freedom approach and refuses any discussion with the AfD. pic.twitter.com/ZAOxWxzNdn

— Naomi Seibt (@SeibtNaomi) December 19, 2024

Elon Musk then brought down the hammer on the German democratic order, retweeting Seibt’s video and remarking that “Only the AfD can save Germany”.

Today a lot of very important and influential people got out of bed and took to their keyboards to denounce Musk’s election interference. His statement might be illegal, at any rate it is very likely fascist and certainly it is beyond the pale for an American to voice an opinion about German politics. Germans absolutely never, ever, utter the slightest word about American politics and certainly would never advance negative opinions about the American President in the middle of an election campaign. Our Foreign Office would never try to fact-check an American presidential debate! Our journalists would never depict President Donald Trump dressed as a Ku Klux Klan member or offering the Hitler salute or decapitating the Statue of Liberty! That’s just not done!

Like a great stream of green diarrhoea, the outrage is pouring forth. Matthias Gebauer, who writes for Der Spiegel, observes that “Elon Musk… is openly promoting the AfD” and concludes that “Putin is not the only one who loves this party”. Erik Marquardt, head of the Green faction in the European Parliament, says that “The EU Commission and EU member states should no longer stand by and watch as billionaires misuse media and algorithms to influence elections and strengthen and normalise Right-wing extremists”. This “is an attack on democracy”, and “has nothing to do with freedom of expression”. Dennis Radtke, CDU representative in the European Parliament, concludes that “Musk… is declaring war on democracy” and that “the man is a menace”. We are also under siege via “interference from Putin”; “the erosion of our democracy is being fuelled from both within and without”. Julian Röpcke, who writes for BILD, believes that “This is interference in the German election campaign by a tech billionaire who uses algorithms to decide what gets heard”. If Germany does not “respond with penalties, there will be no help for our eroding democracy”.

Jonas Koch, at Die Zeit, complains that “the richest man in the world is now campaigning for Right-wing populists in Germany”.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has spoken out in favour of the Alternative for Germany party in the German Parliamentary election campaign. “Only the AfD can save Germany,” he wrote on his online service X.

You can almost see Mr. Koch before you, clasping his pearls. He notes that the Government is doing its best to weather this unprecedented assault on the German republic. He quotes longsuffering Government spokesperson Christian Hoffmann saying that “It’s not the first time that Elon Musk has commented on German politics”. Olaf Scholz, he notes, “has been concerned about… X since Musk assumed control of it”, but he has inexplicably not yet decided to delete Government X accounts.

Nor is this Musk’s only sin against all that is right, free and good:

Musk is not only increasingly involved in politics in the U.S., where he is advising U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and is to head a commission to reduce Government spending. He is also exerting influence in the U.K. He recently announced a donation of up to $100 million to the Right-wing populists around Brexit pioneer Nigel Farage.

As early as the summer, Musk had praised the AfD after the European elections. The party was labelled as Right-wing extremist, “but the political positions of the AfD that I have read about do not sound extremist”, he wrote on X.

Der Spiegel agrees that this is “Not the first time that this super-rich man has interfered in German politics”.

Musk “repeatedly takes potshots at Germany”, he has “insulted” such national saints as “the former Chancellor Angela Merkel”, he has “criticised Chancellor Olaf Scholz”, and most ominously of all he has “even responded to tweets from the far-Right Thuringian AfD leader Björn Höcke”.

He responded to Höcke! Imagine that! It is just the height of political depravity, all that responding.

Now the billionaire and confidant of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has tweeted again…

Tweeted again! The absolute madman! Will he never stop?

…and made a barely concealed election recommendation for the AfD. “Only the AfD can save Germany,” Musk claimed in a tweet. …

Under Trump, Musk is set to become co-head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. The goal of the institution: to reduce bureaucracy, eliminate regulations and cut spending. This could result in Musk weakening or even abolishing those rules that personally limit him.

That’s right, Musk wants to make American Government more efficient so that he can suspend elections and establish himself as American dictator. It takes truly perceptive journalists, like whoever wrote this unsigned Spiegel screed, to see through his clever lies.

Musk constantly uses X for political influence. He not only interferes in German politics from there, but also tries to exert pressure on U.S. Congressmen. … Since Wednesday, he has fired off various tweets to fuel the U.S. budget dispute. He also recently received representatives of the British far-Right [sic] party Reform U.K. at Trump’s private residence Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

He is like a little antidemocratic Hitler, is Elon Musk, just tweeting whatever he wants, receiving guests, influencing… things.

But the gold medal for most outrageous reaction must go to Florian Harms, Editor-in-Chief of t-online. Harms writes for a slightly downmarket publication and so he has to enact more indignation than everybody else.

“This sentence is an outrage,” Harms declares.

There’s always a lot going on on the big-shot platform X. Since Ober-Big-Shot Elon Musk bought the social media company and reprogrammed its algorithms to inject poison, most posts there have devolved into unfounded claims, wild insults or outrageous nonsense. You can safely ignore it.

Unfortunately, what the “Grökraz” himself posts on X cannot be ignored. This Friday, our “greatest Croesus of all time” felt compelled to intervene in the German federal election campaign with a one-liner: “Only the AfD can save Germany.” … That’s his prerogative; after all, anyone can now post nonsense on his platform.

Harms is clearly highly opposed to platforms where anyone can just post anything. People should only be allowed to post things of which Harms approves. Particularly someone like Musk should not be allowed to just post whatever he wants, because Musk is “a global entrepreneur” and therefore “bears special responsibility”:

His words carry weight because they influence international politics, stock markets and social moods. More than 208 million people follow Musk on X; he has configured the digital machines so that his posts are displayed more often than others. This gives his radical views a disproportionate amount of attention, which is how he makes politics – without democratic legitimisation.

Vast swathes of the German corporate sector denounce the AfD all the time without the slightest “democratic legitimisation”, and as far as I know Harms has never complained about that even once. If Musk were attacking AfD, of course, Harms would be totally thrilled with it.

The so-called Alternative for Germany is a crazy party… [A] growing number of its officials are Right-wing radicals and enemies of democracy. This is well known and can be read in in the various reports by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

German political discourse is so insane, I always feel slightly ashamed translating this stuff for you. It feels like dishing out embarrassing family secrets.

Only someone who is either clueless or maliciously intent on spreading misinformation would think that this party alone could contribute something constructive for the good of Germany.

Unfortunately, based on everything we’ve heard from Elon Musk in recent months, we have to assume the latter. This man wants to undermine constitutional and democratic institutions, abolish the welfare state and create a Darwinian world in which the law of the jungle applies. It’s bad enough that he is now gaining so much influence in the USA. This must not happen in Germany. …

Democratic politicians should… refute Musk’s claim. And… they should take a particularly critical look at future investments by Musk’s companies in this country. Consumers also bear a responsibility: Anyone who is still considering buying a Tesla must accept the accusation of supporting a destroyer of democracy. [emphasis mine]

This is all so boundlessly ridiculous, it’s like the entire country is suffering from borderline personality disorder.

If any of these people sincerely believe that Musk’s tweet will have any influence on the German elections in February, they are clinically insane. The only thing here that might influence something is the unceasing hysteria of German establishment discourse, which seems intent on alienating powerful figures at the centre of empire, all for the indecent and passing thrill of a cheap moral orgasm. Any political order that is truly threatened by a six-word remark from anybody – even should it come from the wealthiest, most antidemocratic, fascistic and powerful man in the world – is not a political order worth having.