Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Putin made the right choice, which was always driven by his rational calculation of what was in Russia’s objective interests as a state, not due to “Zionist influence” like some in the Alt-Media Community now ridiculously claim to defame him after being mad that he didn’t lift a finger to save the Resistance.

The Iranian-led Resistance Axis has been defeated by Israel. Hamas’ terrorist attack on 7 October 2023 prompted Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza, which set into motion a series of conflicts that expanded to Lebanon and Syria. Israel has also bombed Yemen and Iran. Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s leaderships were destroyed, leading to a ceasefire in Lebanon, while the Assad government was just overthrown by a Turkish-backed terrorist blitz that severed Iran’s military logistics to Hezbollah.

These outcomes were already surprising enough for those who believed the late Nasrallah’s claim that “Israel is weaker than a spider web”, but many were shocked that they occurred without Russia lifting a finger to save the Resistance, with whom they thought that it had allied against Israel long ago. That second-mentioned false notion will go down in infamy as one of the most successful psy-ops ever conducted against the Alt-Media Community (AMC), and ironically enough, by its own top influencers.

It was explained in early October “Why False Perceptions About Russian Policy Towards Israel Continue To Proliferate”, which readers should review for more detail, but which can be summarized as top AMC influencers telling their audience what they thought they wanted to hear for self-interested reasons. These include generating clout, pushing their ideology, and/or soliciting donations from well-intentioned but naïve members of their audience depending on the personality involved.

The preceding analysis also lists five related ones about Russian policy towards Israel since the start of the West Asian Wars, including this one “Clarifying Lavrov’s Comparison Of The Latest Israeli-Hamas War To Russia’s Special Operation”, which itself links to several dozen others. All of them also reference this May 2018 report about “President Putin On Israel: Quotes From The Kremlin Website (2000-2018)”. All of these materials rely on official and authoritative Russian sources to arrive at their conclusions.

They prove that Putin is a proud lifelong philo-Semite who never shared the Resistance’s unifying anti-Zionist ideology, instead always expressing very deep respect for Jews and the State of Israel. Accordingly, as the final decisionmaker on Russian foreign policy, he tasked his diplomats with balancing between Israel and the Resistance. To that end, Russia never took either’s side and always remained neutral in their disputes, including the West Asian Wars.

The most that he ever personally did was condemn Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians, but always in the same breath as condemning Hamas’ infamous terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. As for Russia, the most that it ever did was repeat the same rhetoric and occasionally condemn Israel’s strikes against the IRGC and Hezbollah in Syria, which Russia never interfered with. Not once did it try to deter or intercept them, retaliate afterwards, or give Syria the capabilities and authorization to do so either.

This was due to the deconfliction mechanism that Putin and Bibi agreed to in late September 2015 shortly before the Syrian operation. It was never confirmed for obvious diplomatic reasons, but these actions (or rather lack thereof) suggested that Putin believed that Iran’s anti-Israeli activities Syria posed a legitimate threat to Israel. For that reason, Russia always stood aside whenever Israel bombed Iran there, but Russia still sometimes complained due to Israel’s attacks formally violating international law.

It’s an objectively existing and easily verifiable fact that Russia’s opposition to Israel’s regional activities, be they in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or Iran, always remained strictly confined to the political realm of official statements. Not once did Russia ever threaten to unilaterally sanction Israel, let alone even remotely hint at military action against it as punishment. Russia won’t even symbolically designate Israel as an “unfriendly state”, though that’s because it doesn’t abide by US sanctions and won’t arm Ukraine.

Therein lies another fact that most in the AMC were either unaware of or in denial about and it’s that Israel isn’t the US’ puppet otherwise it would have already done those two things long ago. It’s beyond the scope of the present piece to explain this, as well as why the Biden Administration has tried to destabilize and overthrow Bibi, but this analysis here dives into the details and cites related articles. The point is that Russian-Israeli ties remain cordial and these two are far from the foes that some thought.

It therefore never made sense to imagine that Putin, who considers himself to be the consummate pragmatist, would burn the bridge that he personally invested nearly a quarter-century of his time building with Bibi between their two nations. After all, Putin boasted in 2019 that “Russians and Israelis have ties of family and friendship. This is a true common family; I can say this without exaggeration. Almost 2 million Russian speakers live in Israel. We consider Israel a Russian-speaking country.”

He was speaking before the Keren Heyesod Foundation, one of the world’s oldest Zionist lobbying organizations, during its annual conference in Moscow that year. Whenever members of the AMC were confronted with these “politically inconvenient” facts from official and authoritative sources such as the Kremlin’s own website, they spun a “5D chess master plan” conspiracy theory alleging that he was just “psyching out the Zionists”. Top influencers also aggressively “canceled” anyone who brought this up.

The end result was that these false perceptions of Russian-Israeli relations as well as Putin’s own views towards this subject continued to proliferate unchallenged through the AMC, thus leading to the impression that they were secretly allied with Iran due to their allegedly shared anti-Zionist ideals. This notion became a matter of dogma for many in the AMC and correspondingly turned into an axiom of International Relations for them. Anyone who claimed otherwise was smeared as a “Zionist”.

It’s now known after Russia didn’t lift a finger to save the Resistance that they were never actually allies. Some of those that still can’t accept that they’ve been lied to by trusted AMC influencers who duped them for self-interested reasons (clout, ideology, and/or soliciting donations) now speculate that Russia “betrayed” the Resistance and “sold out to the Zionists” even though Russia was never on either’s side. If they don’t soon shake off their cognitive dissonance, they’ll detach themselves further from reality.

In retrospect, Russia dodged a bullet by wisely choosing not to ally with the now-defeated Resistance Axis since it would have needlessly ruined its relations with Israel, the undisputable victor of the West Asian Wars.

Putin made the right choice, which was always driven by his rational calculation of what was in Russia’s objective interests as a state, not due to “Zionist influence” like some in the AMC now ridiculously claim to defame him after being mad that he didn’t lift a finger to save the Resistance.

The takeaways from this are several: 1) Putin and his representatives don’t play “5D chess”, they always say what they truly mean; 2) Russia isn’t anti-Israel nor anti-Zionist, but it also isn’t anti-Iran nor anti-Resistance either; 3) the AMC is full of charlatans who, for self-interested reasons, tell their audience whatever they think they want to hear; 4) their audience should thus hold them to account for lying about Russian-Israeli and Russian-Resistance relations; 5) and the AMC requires urgent reform.

Former South Korean former defense chief Kim Yong-hyun ordered a swarm of drones to North Korea’s capital with hopes of provoking an attack that could be used to justify a declaration of martial law by President Yoon Suk Yeol, South Korean legislators have alleged. Meanwhile, ahead of an expected weekend impeachment vote, Yoon used an address to the nation to promise that he would fight “until the very last minute” against being removed from power.  

Kim was arrested on Tuesday for his alleged role in aiding Yoon’s attempt to impose military rule, suspend civil liberties and remove checks and balances — and attempted suicide shortly after midnight on Wednesday. Previous reports pointed to Kim’s deployment of troops to prevent lawmakers from convening after Yoon’s shocking Dec. 3 declaration of martial law. If true, the sensational new allegation from Park Beom-kye of the opposition Democratic Party suggests an entirely different layer of dangerous complicity.     

“The Defense Counterintelligence Command, where former commander Yeo In-hyung – a junior to Kim at the same high school – was posted, appears to have planned [the drone deployment],” said Park in remarks in the parliament on Monday, according to The Telegraph. Citing a “credible military source,” he later told reporters that the “drone operation appears to have been part of a larger plan, potentially tied to preparations for the martial law decree.”

In October, the North Korean government said it had detected multiple South Korean drones that were sent to Pyongyang to shower the capital city with propaganda leaflets. North Korea published a photo of what appears to be a drone that had crashed into a group of trees. At that time and again this week, the South Korean government declined to confirm or deny the accusation. 

Park’s suggestion that Kim and Yoon may have conspired to provoke a North Korean military response — with an accompanying risk of the loss of South Korean lives — adds an explosive new dimension to the country’s ongoing political crisis that followed the declaration of martial law.  

In April, Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) was routed in elections that saw the Democratic Party take over the country’s assembly by a significant margin. In the ensuing months, mounting tensions took various forms, including an impasse over the 2025 budget and Democrats’ attempt to impeach top prosecutors.  On Dec. 3, Yoon stunned South Korea and the international community with a late-night declaration of martial law. In his announcement, Yoon railed against “shameless pro-North-Korean anti-state forces who are plundering the freedom and happiness of our citizens…I will eliminate anti-state forces as quickly as possible and normalize the country.”

Soldiers and police immediately surrounded the National Assembly, but 190 of the 300 members of parliament managed to unanimously vote to annul the martial law declaration. Yoon retracted it and apologized, but the repercussions have continued to unfold since then. Defense chief Kim resigned upon being charged, was taken into custody on Tuesday and attempted to kill himself hours later. The country’s top two law enforcement officers have also been arrested, and police have made multiple attempts to search Yoon’s office.  

An impeachment vote last weekend failed in the face of a boycott by the ruling People Power Party (PPP), but the Democratic Party has announced it will move for impeachment again on Saturday, and some PPP members are now voicing their support. 

On Thursday, Yoon returned to the kind of fiery rhetoric he used in his martial law announcement, calling the Democratic Party “a monster” composed of  “anti-state forces.”

“I will fight to the end to prevent the forces and criminal groups that have been responsible for paralyzing the country’s government and disrupting the nation’s constitutional order from threatening the future of the Republic of Korea…The opposition is now doing a sword dance of chaos, claiming that the declaration of martial law constitutes to an act of rebellion. But was it really?”

Yoon portrayed his martial law move as a legitimate use of government authority which should be exempt from the investigations that have been directed at it. He also claimed soldiers and police were sent to the parliament to keep order, not to thwart legislators.  

According to Associated Press, opposition parties control 192 of the National Assembly’s 300 seats. With impeachment requiring a two-thirds majority, that means pro-impeachment forces will need to win over eight members of Yoon’s PPP. Significantly, PPP chairman Han Dong-hun has called for members to send Yoon packing. Yoon’s fiery Thursday speech has helped stir discord in his party. When Han told a party meeeting that Yoon’s remarks “a confession of rebellion,” he received angry jeers from Yoon backers, who told him to be quiet.   

Polymarket speculators are convinced Yoon will leave office within the next few months. The “yes” contract on a departure before April 1 is going for 80¢. Bettors are less convinced that he’ll be out by year-end, with the “yes” on that version priced at only 12¢.  

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Healthcare costs have soared. Obamacare failed to live up to its promises. And my lead image dramatically understates the problems with costs…

Data from the BLS, chart by Mish

Changes Since 1983

• CPI: 208 percent
• Medical Care Services: 505 percent
• Hospital Services: 975 percent
• Medical Care Commodities: 308 Percent

Changes Since Obamacare Started

• CPI: 41.28 percent
• Medical Care Services: 77.98 percent
• Hospital Services: 77.98 percent
• Medical Care Commodities: 29.94 percent

Understanding BLS Calculations

The numbers look bad but they are much worse than they look because of the way the BLS calculates the CPI.

On all CPI calculations, the BLS only counts costs directly paid by consumers.

To the extent corporations and Medicare are obscuring more of the costs, the CPI numbers are understated.

Health Insurance Coverage 2023

• Employment-based insurance: 54.5% of the population
• Medicare and Medicaid: 18.8% of the population
• Direct-purchase coverage: 9.9% of the population
• TRICARE (Active Military Service): 2.4% of the population
• VA and CHAMPVA coverage: 1.0% of the population 

The above is an AI-generated response. It totals 86.6 percent.

Census. Gov says that in 2022, 92.1 percent of people, or 304.0 million, had health insurance at some point in the year.

Those in various Medicare plans have seen smaller increases than those buying insurance for themselves.

And the cost of direct pay is outrageous. Large corporations can get better deals than smaller ones.

The BLS averages this all in to arrive at the numbers posted in the chart. Heaven help anyone paying for their own insurance who gets cancer or other serious needs.

Rolling the Dice

Obamacare penalizes young and healthy for the benefit of those older and with conditions.

Young adults not working for a company that provides health care benefits frequently opt out. No one can blame them.

ObamaCare Con

The Wall Street Journal discusses the ObamaCare Con

Progressives are at last acknowledging that ObamaCare is a failure. They aren’t doing so explicitly, of course, but their social-media screeds against insurers, triggered by last week’s murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, suggest as much. “We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” CBS News medical contributor Céline Gounder said during a Friday segment on the roasting of health insurers.

Remember Barack Obama’s promise that if you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them? Sorry. How about his claim that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected? Also not true. The biggest howler, however, was that healthcare would become more affordable.

Grant Democrats this: The law has advanced their political goal of expanding government control over insurers, in return for lavishing Americans with subsidies to buy overpriced, lousy products. (One might observe that Democrats are driving a similar Faustian bargain to induce automakers to produce more electric vehicles.)

One problem is that simply having insurance doesn’t change people’s behavior. It does, however, cause them to use more care. This is a particular problem in Medicaid, since beneficiaries often rush to the emergency room for nonemergencies because they don’t have deductibles or co-pays.

Another problem: The nearly 100 million Americans on Medicaid or tightly regulated and generously subsidized exchange plans struggle to find doctors to treat them. Physician access for Medicaid patients has long been limited owing to the program’s low reimbursement rates.

It has gotten worse since ObamaCare expanded eligibility, as states have tried to hold down Medicaid costs by reducing reimbursements. A 2019 study found that patients were only half as likely to get an appointment with a doctor compared with privately insured patients before the law passed. Post-ObamaCare, they were less than one-third as likely. Medicaid is insurance in name only.

Patients with exchange plans hardly fare better. Affordable Care Act plan networks include on average only 40% of local physicians and 21% of those employed by hospitals. Patients must pay significantly more out of pocket to see out-of-network doctors. If you find a doctor in network, there’s no guarantee he’ll continue to be. Insurers are narrowing coverage to keep down costs.

They are also hiking deductibles, which this year averaged $5,241 for a typical plan. That’s up from $2,425 in 2014. Although subsidies reduce how much people with ObamaCare plans pay toward their premiums, they are stuck paying out of pocket until they hit their deductible.

Most healthy young people never do. That means their insurance is worthless except in the event of a catastrophic emergency, which was the gist of recent rants against insurers. Perhaps they should take up their grievances with Mr. Obama, since his law’s mandates and regulations are to blame.

ObamaCare requires plans to cover myriad government-determined “essential benefits” regardless of whether people need them. It also prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums based on a patient’s health-risk factors and limits their ability to do so for older people. The young and healthy are thus required to subsidize their elders, while taxpayers are required to subsidize everyone on the exchanges.

The WSJ noted “states have tried to hold down Medicaid costs by reducing reimbursements.”

Everyone else pays more because if it. Wait times and the struggle to find a doctor who takes Medicaid are not factored into the CPI at all.

‘This Is A Warning’: Warren, Sanders Address Sympathy For UnitedHealthcare CEO Killing

The Huffington Post reports ‘This Is A Warning’: Warren, Sanders Address Sympathy For UnitedHealthcare CEO Killing

Two of the biggest critics of the U.S. health care system condemned the assassination of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson while calling out “vile” insurance company practices aimed at maximizing profits.

“The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told HuffPost in an interview on Tuesday when asked about the cold response to Thompson’s death, which included celebratory posts on social media.

“Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far,” Warren added. “This is a warning that if you push people hard enough, they lose faith in the ability of their government to make change, lose faith in the ability of the people who are providing the health care to make change, and start to take matters into their own hands in ways that will ultimately be a threat to everyone.”

After drawing some criticism for her remarks, Warren clarified her comments in a statement provided to HuffPost on Wednesday.

“Violence is never the answer. Period,” the senator said. “I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called Thompson’s killing “outrageous” and “unacceptable” before similarly criticizing insurance company practices.

“I think what the outpouring of anger at the health care industry tells us is that millions of people understand that health care is a human right and that you cannot have people in the insurance industry rejecting needed health care for people while they make billions of dollars in profit,” Sanders said.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) also criticized “vile” social media posts for celebrating an “assh*le that’s going to die in prison.”

“If you gun someone down that you don’t happen to agree with their views or the business that they’re in, hey, you know, I’m next, they’re next,” he added. “And people want to celebrate it. It’s twisted.”

It’s Twisted

Government meddling is one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive.

Obamacare failed across the board. And it did so by creating big pools of those who overpay and underpay.

Let’s not mince words. People who smoke ought to pay more for healthcare because they are a higher risk. Those who are grossly overweight ought to pay more as well.

Medicaid encourages emergency visits by paying primary care doctors so little that the doctors refuse new patients.

To avoid lawsuits, doctors perform more tests than necessary. Fraud is rampant. Paperwork is excessive.

“Medicare for All” would enhance problems in all of the above.

No Skin in the Game

Customers who have already reached their max out of pocket deductibles have no skin in the game. And that’s a huge problem.

According to Medicare.Gov “No Medicare drug plan may have a deductible more than $505 in 2023. Some Medicare drug plans don’t have a deductible. In some plans that do have a deductible, drugs on some tiers are covered before the deductible.”

Once deductibles are reached, sometimes in one month, consumers have no incentive to shop around.

Other customers, unaware of cost differentials, fill prescriptions on the basis of convenience, that being the nearest pharmacy.

Denver Health at “Critical Point” as 8,000 Migrants Make 20,000 Emergency Visits

January 24, 2024: Denver Health at “Critical Point” as 8,000 Migrants Make 20,000 Emergency Visits

The Denver hospital system is turning away local residents because it is flooded with migrant visits.

Medicaid Expansion Was Supposed to Pay for Itself, Instead Hospitals Are Closing

March 9, 2024: Medicaid Expansion Was Supposed to Pay for Itself, Instead Hospitals Are Closing

10 states did not fall for the Medicaid expansion trap under Obamacare. The rest are suffering. Private payers (you, one way or another) make up the loss.

Medicaid does not pay enough to cover hospitals’ costs, meaning hospitals need to make up for the shortfall by charging private payers more.

This was one of the easiest “I Told You So” advance predictions in history.

Best of all, we have a decade of data to prove it thanks to ten states that resisted the trap.

Hospitals Turn to Pay In Advance, In Full

May 9, 2024: Hospitals Turn to Pay In Advance, In Full

If you are in the hospital emergency room, and that’s where most people without insurance go, then you get treated. Otherwise, many hospitals are turning to pay in advance for services.

Nonpayment a Huge Problem

It’s interesting to note that hospitals want payment in advance for births. Most illegals just walk in and never pay for anything.

Nonpayment is one of the reasons costs are soaring for everyone who does pay.

Obama claimed Medicaid expansion would pay for itself.

Whenever you hear that claim please run. Free government handouts are never free and most often backfire completely.

As long as we are going to have Medicare, and no politician will ever get rid of it, It would behoove Medicare and insurers to require the cheapest cost alternative on all drugs. That would force competition and eliminate fraudulent collusion.

US consumers are subsidizing the rest of the world. I would put an end to that by allowing drug imports.

The Right to Die

It’s an uncomfortable topic, where demagoguery about “death squads” abounds, but we need to have a talk about the right to die and how much money we spend prolonging a terminal patient’s life, in massive pain, for a few weeks or months.

I have made my wishes known. I do not want to be kept alive by heroic means if the quality of my life is expected to be grim. That’s a personal decision.

At the national level, we must face this very uncomfortable question: Should we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping someone alive whose life expectancy is 3 months? 6 months? a year?

I say no to all for those without insurance, and no for me personally, regardless.

Also, hospitals should be free to turn away those without insurance. We need tort reform to cut down legal expenses.

When consumers have no skin in the game or not enough skin in the game, no one other than the insurers are interested in reducing costs.

That is the fundamental problem with US healthcare. Senators Warren and Sanders proposals would make everything worse.

Lucid Motors CEO Peter Rawlinson appeared on Bloomberg TV Thursday morning to discuss how the struggling electric vehicle (EV) maker is in discussions with “multiple automakers about potential partnerships.”

Lucid would welcome an opportunity to share costs and intellectual property with a traditional car company, Chief Executive Officer Peter Rawlinson told Bloomberg TV, noting that there are ongoing conversations with “a couple” of manufacturers.

“It would be lovely if we could supply technology to a traditional car company to help them on their way to sustainability, and perhaps we can leverage economies of scale with their parts bin and other aspects of the business,” Rawlinson said in an interview.

Interesting interview !! Worth to watch 👀 $LCID 🚀 #LucidMotors Reveals 450 Miles Range EV https://t.co/tue4sRoiGU pic.twitter.com/wRQdoZ7sqw

— Lucid 🚀🚀 (@rocckosw23) December 12, 2024

California-based Lucid is struggling in the era of Tesla winning the EV price war and risks that President-elect Donald Trump will cut the $7,500 tax credit next year. 

Lucid’s third-quarter revenue of $137.8 million was nearly 30% below the same period one year ago, while vehicle production for the year was between 8,000 and 8,500 vehicles, down from a target of 10,000. 

In a separate report, we noted that Luicid lost a little more than a quarter million dollars per car sold. This is alarming and only made possible after a decade of negative real rates and unlimited QE. 

Lucid is not alone in its financial struggles within the EV sector. Rivian, another upscale EV maker, faced a loss of $33,000 per vehicle sold in the second quarter. Meanwhile, Ford, a traditional automaker, anticipates over $4 billion in losses from its EV division this year.

Meanwhile, Tesla’s Elon Musk has encouraged Trump to eliminate the $7,500 consumer tax credit, which would ultimately be a play in nuking his competition, such as Lucid, Rivian, and legacy automakers. 

In premarket, the CEO’s comments on Bloomberg barely budged the stock. Shares are down 42% on the year. Short interest is about 23% of the float with 4.4 days to cover.

Lucid is supported by the Saudi Arabian public investment fund and recently entered into a partnership with Volkswagen. 

At the beginning of the year, Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas outlined various pathways for struggling EV companies to navigate the downturn. The note was titled “Can EV Slowdown Trigger Auto M&A Wave?”

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity,news,

After lauding how the overthrow of Assad in Syria would bring about “moderate jihad,” the BBC highlighted how thousands of ‘excited’ Syrians turned out to see a public execution.

Since Syrian rebel leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani led his militants to topple Assad’s government, the legacy media has been busy rebranding al-Jolani and his cohorts as westernized and tolerant, with al-Jolani even adopting the rhetoric of corporate HR departments by declaring, “Diversity is a strength.”

Earlier this week, the BBC said that al-Jolani and his HTS fighters wanted to usher in a form of “moderate jihad,” despite the fact that the rebel leader was previously affiliated with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, was radicalized by 9/11, and previously planted roadside IEDs targeting US troops in Iraq.

Apparently, one manifestation of this “moderate jihad” is the lust for extrajudicial public executions.

Is this what the BBC meant by ‘moderate jihad’? pic.twitter.com/hcmgXc0dfZ

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) December 12, 2024

The BBC’s Jeremy Bowen reported on how a huge group of Syrians had gathered to see one of Assad’s military intelligence operatives be publicly hanged.

Thousands of Syrians almost caused a stampede as they congregated expecting to see the individual executed.

The BBC reported that the crowd were “jostling for the best position, not wanting to miss a thing,” and shared a “real strong sense of excitement, expectation” at the prospect of witnessing the hanging.

“They don’t just want justice to be done, they want to see it being done,” said Bowen.

Another example of “moderate jihad” unfolded in Syria when Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) destroyed the tomb of the late president Hafez al-Assad, which also contained the remains of his wife and eldest son, by burning it to the ground.

🇸🇾HTS militants destroyed grave of Hafez Assad, father of Bashad Al-Assad in Al Qardahah, Northwestern Syria

When they even start desecrating the dead you know you’re dealing with a bunch “moderate” rebels bringing values and democracy to Syria!pic.twitter.com/Y9fX0Vf4Ss

— Pete Liquid Питик (@PeteLiquid) December 10, 2024

Meanwhile, since the overthrow of Assad, innumerable horrific videos have emerged of Syrian rebel militants executing alleged Assad sympathizers in cold blood.

🚨🇸🇾 BREAKING: The new Syrian government is dragging people by car to their death on the streets.

The UK just sent them £11 MILLION in humanitarian aid. pic.twitter.com/QARyU0sT77

— Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 (@jacksonhinklle) December 10, 2024

If this is “moderate jihad,” one wonders what hardcore jihad would look like.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh quickly rejected Republican Congressman Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey’s claim that mysterious Iranian “mothership” drone carriers off the US East Coast were launching drone swarms into New Jersey airspace.

Singh told reporters on Wednesday afternoon, hours after Van Drew’s comments on Fox News, that “There is no Iranian ship off the coast of the United States … and there is no so-called ‘mothership’ launching drones toward the United States.”

Singh might be correct in her assessment because if Iran had drone carriers off the US East Coast, satellite intelligence firms would have likely published images of these carriers, sparking panic in corporate media—just as they did when Iranian warships sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to Venezuela several years ago.

It remains a mystery where the drones are originating from in New Jersey, one of the most restricted airspaces in the world, second only to the Baltimore-Washington metro area.

But what does not remain a mystery is that Iranian IRGC’s (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) drone carriers exist on the other side of the world.

Here’s more color on the IRGC “motherships” via Covert Shores:

The Iranian IRGC’s (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) latest ambitious naval project, the drone carrier Shahid Bagheri (C-110-4), has sailed. The vessel appears to be on sea trials and may now be anchored outside Bandar Abbas harbor. Work on the The 240 metership, a converted merchant vessel, begun in 2022, and she was launched in 2023.

The ship’s distinctive outline is visible in Sentinel 2 satellite imagery from yesterday. Other sources suggest that the ship is still in the vicinity. The flight deck is now marked, possibly flight tests of some sort can be expected.

The ship has a unique angled flight deck on the port (left) side which heads across towards the starboard (right) side. This novel arrangement is a workaround to avoid the need to remove the pre-existing superstructure left over from the ship’s past life as a merchant vessel.

The angled flight deck, with a ski-jump ramp at the front, shows that the ship is intended for fixed-wing operations. The aircraft, highly likely primarily drones (UAVs), will be landing as well as taking off, so will not be one-way types. Previous Iranian drone carriers have only been able to launch large drones, not recover them.

The utility of such a ship in the IRGC’s fleet is open to question, but shows both the ambition of the country’s regime, and the trend towards drone carriers.

In a separate report, these drone carriers were spotted early last week in the Strait of Hormuz, 7,500 miles away from New Jersey. 

🇮🇷Iran has 2x drone ‘motherships’

Both were visible on 8 Dec 2024 in the anchorage in Bandar Abbas (~12,000km from NJ)

Both were visible on Sentinel 1 (SAR) on 11 Dec 2024 (today), in the same location

Both were visible on ultra high res 📷 on 3 Dec 2024 in the same location https://t.co/14oJl35AqR pic.twitter.com/DsXocBM4LD

— MT Anderson (@MT_Anderson) December 11, 2024

Sal Mercogliano, a professor at Campbell University and the host of the What Is Going On With Shipping? show on YouTube, provided additional color on Iran’s drone carriers and the likelihood that these vessels are not parked off the US East Coast. 

So, where are these drones coming from?

After a solid 3Y auction on Tuesday and a stellar 10Y yesterday, moments ago the Treasury concluded the week’s coupon issuance with a decidedly soggy 30Y auction, one which pushed yields to session highs.

Today’s sale was a $22BN reopening of 30Y paper in the form of 29Y-11M cusip UE6, which priced at a high yield of 4.535%, down modestly from 4.608% last month but stopping through the When Issued 4.523% by 1.2bps, the first tail since September and follows two solid stop throughs.

The Bid to Cover was also disappointed: unlike yesterday’s blowout 10Y high, today’s BTC was just 2.39x, down from 2.64x and the lowest since September; it was also below the six auction average of 2.43x.

The internals were soggy at best: Indirects were awarded 66.5%, up from 62.7% but below the recent average of 67.7%. And with Directs taking down 19.1%, down from 27.1% in November, Dealers were left holding 14.4%, the highest since September.

Overall, this was a C-rated auction at best, and the market reacted accordingly, sending 10Y yields up 2bps from 4.29% at auction time to 4.31%, and since drifting another basis point to session highs above 4.32%.

In a huge and unprecedented overture, President-elect Donald Trump has invited Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend his inauguration on January 20, a move which some have already called a ‘signal to the planet’. A Chinese president attending a US presidential inauguration would be a first in history.

Transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt confirmed to CBS News on Thursday that Trump invited Xi and that it’s an example of Trump “creating an open dialogue with  leaders of countries that are not just our allies but our adversaries and our competitors too.”

There are plans to also invite other foreign leaders and dignitaries, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The Hungarian leader’s office says he is “still considering” whether to attend.

“World leaders are lining up to meet with President Trump because they know he will soon return to power and restore peace through American strength around the globe,” Leavitt further said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been among the first Republican pundits and strategists to weigh in on the global “signal.” It’s as yet not clear what Xi’s answer will be.

“Look, I think Trump believes in constant offense, constant momentum, keeping things going forward,” Gingrich told Fox. “I think he gets up every day and tries to figure out, you know, ‘Let’s go to McDonald’s or let’s go to the garbage truck,’ whatever it takes but he wants to be on offense,” he continued.

“I suspect he woke up, looked around and thought, ‘Yeah, I think my good friend Xi Jinping, we haven’t been together in a long time, why don’t I…?’“

And below is Bloomberg’s reaction:

Donald Trump invited Xi Jinping to attend his inauguration, CBS reported. Xi’s attendance would be unprecedented and may signal an effort by Trump to court him amidst threats of fresh tariffs against China. 

And a note from Goldman:

Xi invited to the inauguration… a bit of an olive branch and maybe enough to help some support to China related sentiment overnight. “Chinese shares related to consumption surged Thursday amid expectations for more concrete measures from a key economic policy meeting to boost domestic demand.” (BBG) Still awaiting clarity from CEWC.

Trump invites Xi to his inauguration, which to my knowledge is a first: no Chinese president has ever been invited to a U.S. presidential inauguration.

An all-too-rare positive and very symbolic signal in the U.S.-China relationship.https://t.co/OEhpQ89BqL

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) December 12, 2024

This does seem to be Trump saying ‘we don’t have to be enemies’ and ‘we could choose diplomacy and avoid conflict’ – a track he appears also ready to take with Russia, in order to end the war in Ukraine.

But he’s of course also threatened to impose new tariffs on China, a threat that’s extended to Canada and Mexico as well, on his first day in office. In China’s case the tariff will be 10% on all goods, on top of existing tariffs. 

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Leftist attack dog ProPublica seemed unfazed by the widespread ridicule it faced on social media after its botched attempt at a smear campaign against Pete Hegseth backfired.

The publication had plotted to accuse Hegseth of falsely claiming he was accepted into West Point. In response, Hegseth got ahead of the publication and shared his acceptance letter confirming that he had been accepted into the military academy—though he declined the offer.

In a now-viral tweet, Hegseth wrote, “We understand that ProPublica (the Left Wing hack group) is planning to publish a knowingly false report that I was not accepted to West Point in 1999.”

Hegseth also shared his letter of acceptance signed by Army Lieutenant General and then-West Point Superintendent Daniel Christman. 

We understand that ProPublica (the Left Wing hack group) is planning to publish a knowingly false report that I was not accepted to West Point in 1999.

Here’s my letter of acceptance signed by West Point Superintendent, Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, US Army. pic.twitter.com/UOhOVZSfhJ

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) December 11, 2024

As criticism mounted against ProPublica, its editor, Jesse Eisinger, attempted to defend the outlet but inadvertently made the situation worse. He claimed West Point had falsely informed the publication that Hegseth was never admitted to the military academy. 

“We asked West Pt public affairs, which told us twice on the record that he hadn’t even applied there,” Eisinger wrote on X. “We reached out. Hegseth’s spox gave us his acceptance letter. We didn’t publish a story. That’s journalism.” 

Hegseth has said that he got into West Point but didn’t attend.

We asked West Pt public affairs, which told us twice on the record that he hadn’t even applied there.

We reached out. Hegseth’s spox gave us his acceptance letter.

We didn’t publish a story.

That’s journalism. https://t.co/TceZdglkmL

— Jesse Eisinger (@eisingerj) December 11, 2024

Despite Eisinger’s attempt to save face, Hegseth’s defenders said the real story ProPublica should have published was that West Point had incorrectly discredited Hegseth. 

Initially, ProPublica quoted West Point as stating, “According to the admissions office – Hegseth had not applied for admission to the U.S. Military Academy.”  

After being pressed for clarification, West Point admitted: “A review of our records indicates that Mr. Peter Hegseth was offered admission to West Point in 1999 but did not attend West Point.” 

West Point public affairs lied to ProPublica, wrongly said Pete Hegseth never even applied to the academy.

Hegseth responded with a copy of his 1999 West Point acceptance letter, killing ProPublica’s story.

Big error from West Point. https://t.co/sLpFDCoq3F

— Andrew Kerr (@AndrewKerrNC) December 11, 2024

West Point confirmed Hegseth had been offered admission for the class of 2023, issuing a statement to correct the record. 

“An incorrect statement involving Mr. Hegseth’s admission to the United States Military Academy was released by an employee on December 10, 2024,” the academy said. “Upon further review of an achieved [sic] database, employees realized this statement was in error.”

The academy added it was taking “this situation very seriously” and issued an apology “for this administrative error.” 

10/ We went back to West Point. They apologized.

An Army spokesman wrote: pic.twitter.com/HFN76mOSOh

— Jesse Eisinger (@eisingerj) December 11, 2024

ProPublica’s failed attempt to smear Hegseth appeared to be part of a broader campaign aimed at thwarting his nomination as the next secretary of the Department of Defense. 

Trump announced his decision to nominate Hegseth following his landslide victory in the 2024 presidential election. Despite relentless media attacks on Hegseth’s personal life, the president-elect has stood by his side. 

“He will be a fantastic, high energy, Secretary of Defense,” Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this month, later adding: “Pete is a WINNER, and there is nothing that can be done to change that!!!” 

President-elect Trump defends DoD nominee Pete Hegseth: “Does not have a drinking problem” pic.twitter.com/0jHbmjyLLW

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) December 7, 2024

Authored by Josh O’Sullivan via CoinTelegraph.com,

Brian Quintenz, a former United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) commissioner, has reportedly emerged as the top contender for the CFTC chair position under the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

According to a Bloomberg report, people familiar with the matter said that Quintenz had been interviewed for the position.

Currently the head of policy at Andreessen Horowitz’s crypto division, a16z, Quintenz’s background includes overseeing key policy initiatives at the CFTC between 2017 and 2021.

The appointment of the former CFTC commissioner may shift the scales in the long-debated jurisdictional lack of clarity over cryptocurrencies between the CFTC and the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Looking for a guy in finance?

Quintenz previously served as a Republican-appointed commissioner at the CFTC, advocating for financial innovation of the digital asset industry and currently pushes for regulatory clarity as head of policy at a16z.

During his tenure at the CFTC, he supported the integration of digital asset derivatives and event contracts into the federal agency’s regular framework, focusing on improving innovation while maintaining market integrity. 

At a16z, Quintenz advocates for regulations that balance scrutiny with flexibility in crypto, using his dual experience in traditional finance (TradFi) and crypto regulation to bridge the two playing fields.

Quintenz’s criticism of the SEC

In March, the former CFTC commissioner criticized the SEC for how it handled Ether’s status as a security, arguing that the regulator already “explicitly acknowledged” that Ether ETH$3,960.53 is a non-security asset as of October 2023 when it approved Ether futures exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

Quintenz stated that “if the SEC had any doubt about the regulatory treatment of ETH […] it wouldn’t have approved the ETF,” adding that if it were a security, the CFTC-listed future contracts “would be illegal.” 

Since then, spot Ether ETFs have not only been approved, but they have flourished, recording their biggest single day of inflows with an aggregate of $431.5 million pouring in on Dec. 5.

Crypto under the Trump administration

The venture capital firm a16z has expressed its opinion on the upcoming Trump administration, stating that it expects “greater flexibility to experiment” in the crypto regulatory shakeup.

The crypto company said it is “very optimistic” about the next government due to its promised pro-crypto political stance — something crypto firms and communities consider lacking under the previous administration.

A16z has been one of the largest investors in the crypto industry, funding hundreds of startup firms, including Maker, Solana, Avalanche, Aptos, EigenLayer, Lido, Nansen, OpenSea, Coinbase and more.