Update(2200ET): Damascus has fallen. Unverified reports say President Assad and top officials have fled to Dubai or elsewhere but the situation overnight is fluid and anything but clear in terms of the location of top leadership. They may be in Latakia on the coast, or headed there. What is clear, however, is that the jihadists have entered the heart of the capital.

This brings to an end the last secular and Baathist state in the Middle East, and 50+ years of Assad family rule. Journalist Danny Makki, who is currently in Damascus, observes:

Literally Syrian military/security around Damascus just fled, ran away, changed into civilian clothes escaped, there was no battle for Damascus, it was abandoned and by tommorow it will be all under opposition control.

Abassiyeen Square in Central Damascus, soldiers/military abandoning positions, changing into civilian clothes. pic.twitter.com/vJzvdaUeVb

— Danny Makki (@danny_makki) December 8, 2024

And Al Jazeera reports:

Videos from the Syrian capital, verified by Al Jazeera, appears to show soldiers leaving the city. The sound of gunfire could also be heard.

The footage was taken moments before opposition forces claimed entering Damascus. There’s been no confirmation or denial from government forces.

“Syrian rebel sources tell Al Jazeera Arabic that government forces have withdrawn from the Defence Ministry headquarters in Damascus,” the report further indicates. State TV channels are in the hands of the anti-Assad factions.

⚡️The building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Damascus came under the control of the “rebels”. Video from half an hour ago. pic.twitter.com/oQkMKiursg

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) December 8, 2024

Damascus International Airport:

“Stamp my passport by myself”#Damascus International Airport is completely empty of all staff and security. pic.twitter.com/ESkMtW91Mt

— Warfare Analysis (@warfareanalysis) December 8, 2024

Abandoned tanks and equipment in the middle of central intersections…

⚡️Scenes from Umayyad Square in central Damascus moments ago, SAA left a T-72 in the middle of the road

pic.twitter.com/hd7SUPiwY0

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) December 8, 2024

Widespread rumors begin…

Unconfirmed reports that an Ilyushin transport plane supposedly carrying #Assad has crashed. Again, unconfirmed is the key word here.

— Nabih (@nabihbulos) December 8, 2024

* * * 

There are widespread reports that jihadist forces under Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and which are backed by Turkey have entered key districts of Homs in central Syria, and other convoys have already reached the outskirts of Damascus.

Very little fighting has actually taken place, with the Syrian Army peeling back from position after position, and with heavy equipment including tanks seen being transported to the capital or in other instances to the coast. ZeroHedge’s contacts in Damascus strongly suggest a transition of power deal has already been made.

External discussions are centered in Doha, and some premature and unverified reports have claimed President Bashar al-Assad has already flown out of the country; however, Syrian state SANA on Saturday sought to refute these reports, saying he is still in Damascus.

Iranian advisers and IRGC officers have departed Damascus. This also partly explains why Syrian national forces have not put up much of a fight.

Unverified social media reports further say that anti-Assad forces have essentially been able to walk into suburban or countryside areas of the capital with no resistance. Again, what points to the likely reality of a secret deal which allows Assad’s safe exit and that of his top officials is the fact that all of this is happening without much bloodshed.

Below is the latest on the jihadist convoy locations according to The Guardian:

Syrian insurgents have reached the suburbs of Damascus, opposition activists and a rebel commander said on Saturday, as a rapidly moving offensive in which they have taken over some of Syria’s largest cities continued.

Rami Abdurrahman, who heads the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition war monitor, said insurgents were active in the Damascus suburbs of Maadamiyah, Jaramana and Daraya.

He said opposition fighters were also marching from eastern Syria towards the Damascus suburb of Harasta.

Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, posted on Telegram that opposition forces had started to encircle Damascus in the “final stage” of their offensive. He said fighters were heading from southern Syria towards Damascus.

Map: The collapse of Syria over the last 10 days

Whatever happens next, it is becoming clear that the Baathist Syrian state under the Assad family, which goes back to 1970 when Hafez Assad first emerged in power, will never be the same again – and is coming to a fast end.

Many Christian, Alawite, and Sunni ruling families in the capital area are fleeing to the Lebanese border, not waiting around to take their chances under Taliban-style rule, despite dubious claims that HTS plans to respect ‘diversity’ and pluralism.

Footage from a key suburbs outside the capital [note: cannot be independently verified]…

SYRIA: Anti-Assad protestors bring down Hafez Assad statue in middle of Jarmana (20 min from Damascus). The protests and rebel offensive are only spreading, gradually approaching capital… pic.twitter.com/kkBhGsOlj2

— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) December 7, 2024

BREAKING — Damascus outskirts Al Moademyeh is free of Assad forces. This is right next to Mezzeh Air Base pic.twitter.com/ACLcRaTU1E

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) December 7, 2024

Contradictory reporting over Assad’s whereabouts and political transition plans:

Embassy Statement: Denial of Allegations Made in Wall Street Journal Article pic.twitter.com/IEE8JmbQbt

— Jordan Embassy in Washington D.C. (@JorEmbUS) December 6, 2024

Regional war correspondent Elijah Magnier observes, “It looks like what will remain of the old Syria will be limited to Homs, for now, and on longer term Latakia – Tartous only. Lebanon should think about defended its borders. People in Damascus should think of their future in the next 24-48 hours.”

The latest from the Syrian presidency’s office:

Presidency of the #Syrian Arab Republic affirms that President Bashar al-Assad is assuming his work, national and constitutional tasks from the capital, Damascushttps://t.co/v4ko1Nfiek pic.twitter.com/Sj8CGjaE0C

— SANAEnglishOfficial (@SANAEnOfficial) December 7, 2024

Meanwhile the Syrian Interior Minister Major General Al-Rahmon vows that “there is a very strong security cordon on the outskirts of Damascus and no one can break it.”

Military commanders are still vowing to fight, and to mount a ‘fortress Damascus’ defense as the insurgent armies outside the capital are vowing to besiege it.

Syrian military commanders makes a video statement:

“Our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and… pic.twitter.com/K8BFTtx0cC

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) December 7, 2024

developing…

Authored by William Andersen via The Mises Institute,

After spending 25 years as a columnist for the New York Times, Paul Krugman is finally retiring from that position – 25 years too late, if one wishes to be honest. It is hard to measure the influence he had from that perch, but his columns surely were the deciding factor in his winning the Nobel in economics in 2008 after eight years of lambasting the George W. Bush administration.

[ZH: Yes, we know that isn’t a picture of Krugman, but it always makes us laugh…]

(His Nobel Prize was given, ostensibly, for “his work in economic geography and in identifying international trade patterns,” but one should have no doubt that, without having the power and influence of the New York Times behind him, it is doubtful that the Nobel Committee would even have known of his existence. I weighed in on the Nobel selection in a column in Forbes, hastily-written during a short break between classes I was teaching at Frostburg State University.)

Not surprisingly, the response from his peers is hagiographic. Kathleen Kingsbury, quoting from Krugman’s first column, declares:

That lede and the column were signature Krugman: The authoritative voice. The lively writing. The direct style. The clear hand guiding readers through a thicket of policy, data and trade-offs. The big ideas — in that column, they were about the First Global Economy and the Second Global Economy and how the interplay of political and economic questions would shape life worldwide in the 21st century. In little time, Paul became an essential read in Opinion, helping countless readers become more fluent in and mindful of how trade, taxes, technology, the markets, labor and capital intersected with political leadership, ideology and partisanship to shape the lives of people across America and the world.

Indeed, Krugman has been influential, but his influence hasn’t been a good thing. He is a disciple of John Maynard Keynes and has played an important role in legitimizing the application of Keynesian schemes by governments to “stimulate” their economies. Those governments were unsuccessful, Krugman claimed, because they had failed to inflate their economies enough to break out of the Keynesian “liquidity trap,” an imaginary state of affairs that Murray N. Rothbard fully debunked.

Krugman even resorted to fantasy in his quest to fight the mighty “liquidity trap,” claiming that if the US were to prepare for a never-to-come alien invasion, the burst of government spending would revitalize the economy. That nonsense alone should have discredited him as a serious economist, but instead cemented his status as the great advocate for the Keynesian trope that government spending is the key to economic prosperity.

To his credit, Krugman did condemn the tariffs proposed by President-elect Donald Trump, but the truth is that he never has truly understood economics from the praxeological vantage point, nor has he ever been interested in seeing economics in that way. An economy, to Krugman, is a series of aggregates—consisting of homogeneous labor, natural resources, and capital—all to be manipulated by government agencies and central banks. The idea that demand springs from what we produce in a market economy was anathema to Krugman, who hated that economic doctrine so much that he referred to Jean-Baptiste Say as a “cockroach.”

Given Krugman’s inability to understand the basics of economic logic, perhaps it isn’t surprising that he made the wild prediction: “By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” Someone who cannot understand how production of goods drives demand for other goods most likely isn’t going to comprehend how improving pathways for information will also improve commerce.

Krugman was just as uncharitable to the Austrians as he was toward Say—although he never really understood Austrian economics and, to be honest, was happy to remain in blissful ignorance. He referred to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory wrongly as “The Hangover Theory,” turning a well-developed theory that meticulously explains the processes of booms and busts and reducing it to a morality play. He wrote:

A few weeks ago, a journalist devoted a substantial part of a profile of yours truly to my failure to pay due attention to the “Austrian theory” of the business cycle—a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire. Oh well. But the incident set me thinking—not so much about that particular theory as about the general worldview behind it. Call it the overinvestment theory of recessions, or “liquidationism,” or just call it the “hangover theory.” It is the idea that slumps are the price we pay for booms, that the suffering the economy experiences during a recession is a necessary punishment for the excesses of the previous expansion.

The hangover theory is perversely seductive—not because it offers an easy way out, but because it doesn’t. It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love. Powerful as these seductions may be, they must be resisted—for the hangover theory is disastrously wrongheaded. Recessions are not necessary consequences of booms. They can and should be fought, not with austerity but with liberality—with policies that encourage people to spend more, not less.

In other words, government spending on wars was just as economically useful as spending money on new capital and research that increases crop yields because, after all, someone is spending money. To Krugman, an economy is a purely circular thing in which we produce something to put on the shelves and spending is the process by which we remove the goods from the shelves so we can produce something else to put on the shelves—and so on.

It is not surprising that regime-minded elites worshiped his every declaration. Governments were not spending too much money; they were spending too little! Those who print money hand-over-fist, who intervene in the markets to direct resources to politically-favored winners are the real public benefactors. Those who question the wisdom of untrammeled government spending are the true enemies of the people.

At a Southern Economic Association meeting in 2004, I asked Krugman if he was endorsing the 70 percent tax rates that existed before 1981. “No,” he replied emphatically, “Those rates were insane!” When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for the return of 70 percent marginal rates in 2019, Krugman said he believed those rates were “reasonable.” No doubt, he would attribute that change of heart to personal “growth” or just an evolutionary change in his thinking.

In truth, believing in an all-powerful state that can, in Keynes’ own words, turn “stones into bread” through the magic of spending and creation of new credit does not require personal growth or maturity. Instead, it reflects a mind that prefers fantasy over reality, lies over truth. Paul Krugman can retire peacefully, knowing that he has sanitized the use of raw state power in place of mutually-beneficial exchange that characterizes the marketplace.

Nationwide demand for raw milk has never been higher, as out-of-control bureaucrats in their ivory towers in Washington, DC, exploit bird flu outbreaks in dairy herds to financially crush small farms while ensuring that large-scale farms owned by mega corporations, which produce questionable/unhealthy food (hence America’s obesity crisis), remain in control of the nation’s food supply chain. 

The latest overreach in the war on raw milk comes as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) ordered dairy farmers to work with the federal agency to test for bird flu (H5N1). 

On Friday, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack wrote in a statement, “This new milk testing strategy will build on those steps to date and will provide a roadmap for states to protect the health of their dairy herds.” 

“Among many outcomes, this will give farmers and farmworkers better confidence in the safety of their animals and ability to protect themselves, and it will put us on a path to quickly controlling and stopping the virus’ spread nationwide,” Vilsack said. 

The new testing mandate gives the federal government yet another foothold in controlling the nation’s milk supply and moves one step closer to banning raw milk, all under the guise of combating “bird flu.”

The FDA is out of control 💯💯💯. They are targeting raw milk and going after RAW Farm in California, even though they have NO evidence of FOODBORNE transmission of bird flu. RAW Farm produces raw milk that exceeds better bacterial standards than pasteurized milk! Yet the govt is… https://t.co/Ie9GcRDXrC pic.twitter.com/zMVHNN0Z3y

— Sarah Smith NM (@SarahSmithNM) December 4, 2024

The federal government’s war on raw milk, small farms, and the Amish is nothing new. However, it has escalated under the Biden-Harris regime as big gov’t raced to put mom-and-pop farms out of business. It’s all about federal agency capture (at the USDA and many other agencies) by the processed foods industrial complex, which views small farms as a competition threat. 

With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearings to lead the Department of Health and Human Services next month, his views on ‘Making America Healthy Again‘ through clean food have put the processed food industrial complex and big pharma on notice. 

Headlines featuring ‘raw milk’ surged in corporate media after bird flu cases were detected at dairy farms earlier this year. However, following former President Trump’s victory and the strong probability of RFK Jr. leading HHS, anti-raw milk rhetoric in corporate media exploded in just the last few weeks. Maybe the headlines are surging on bird flu cases – yet we believe this is more tied to the processed food industrial complex being absolutely terrified of Kennedy.

In addition to the soaring raw milk demand, Americans are waking up to the disturbing reality of how poisonous the nation’s food supply chain has become. People are turning to small farms, including the Amish, for cleaner ag products—a move that has infuriated the bureaucrats and their friends in the processed food industrial complex. 

The federal government’s all-out war on small farms is pure insanity. However, the motive is not complex to understand when DC bureaucrats and their billionaire friends want to take over the nation’s food supply chain.

Reject the processed food industrial complex. Source your food locally, start a victory garden, buy a chicken coop, get honey bees, and if you’re really up for the challenge… buy cattle. Become ungovernable – and that starts by controlling your own food supply chain – not DC bureaucrats and their billionaire friends who want to eliminate cow farts with experimental vaccines. 

Also, isn’t it odd that DC bureaucrats did not push clean food trends and exercise to fix America’s health crisis? Instead, DC elites resorted to their friends in pharma, pushing GLP-1 medications, such as Ozempic. After all, exercise doesn’t make the DC swamp and pharma money; every GLP-1 injection and kickbacks do.  

Authored by Seth Barron via RealClearPolitics,

The Biden-Harris experiment in dissolving the U.S. border has wrought massive changes to American society, most of which will not be understood for years, if not decades. Since 2021, U.S. border officials have had at least 10 million “encounters” with migrants, many of whom were allowed to enter the country. There is no telling how many more aliens entered the country without encountering enforcement agents. The population of the United States may have increased by as much as 15 million people in just a few years.

This massive flow of humanity crosses multiple national borders, involves every mode of transportation, accounts for billions of dollars paid in fees to smugglers, and describes a fantastically complex economy of suffering and hope. In an effort to get a handle on this human tide, noted muckraker James O’Keefe – known for his hidden camera “gotcha” interviews with abortionists, media executives, progressive nonprofit executives, and other degenerate types – traces the migrant onrush from its source, and seeks to trace the machinery of profit and influence that is conducting it from great removes.

“Line In The Sand,” the resulting documentary, is a remarkable and humane exposition, revealing perspectives and images American audiences have mostly been prevented from seeing. O’Keefe and his intrepid team begin on the U.S. side of the Mexican border, where we witness migrants crossing the border through holes that their guides have cut in a fence that serves as a target as much as a barrier. Infrared cameras show dozens of illegal aliens streaming toward “pick-up” vehicles on the U.S. side while smugglers – presumably cartel members – a few feet away taunt O’Keefe and his group. “What if I were to run up to them right now, what would happen?” O’Keefe asks his guide. “I would highly advise you against that,” he is told, in a classic understatement.

The fact that coyotes and other human traffickers are paid to assist northbound migrants with their passage is no scandal; we all know what their motivations are and why they are doing what they do. But O’Keefe documents multiple examples of U.S. Border Patrol agents standing idly by while illegal aliens cross, virtually under their noses. “Why aren’t you doing anything?” he asks. “Have a good day, guys,” a border agent desultorily responds before driving off in the general direction of the episode. Later, a migrant stands in front of a Border Patrol truck, clearly trying to alert the agents of his intention to surrender, but is studiously ignored until O’Keefe and his team call their attention to him.

There is a kind of sad comedy in the operations of U.S. border security, and O’Keefe is not unsympathetic to the absurd position that border agents have been put in. Trained to defend the national border and to serve as the first line of defense of American soil, these agents have been recommissioned as a perverse Welcome Wagon for illegal aliens, charged with making their undocumented and uninvited entrance to the United States as commodious as possible.

Looking to get deeper into the heart of this migratory avalanche, O’Keefe went deep into Mexico, to the city of Irapuato, about 150 miles northwest of Mexico City. Irapuato is a popular railway junction where thousands of migrants climb aboard “La Bestia,” or “The Beast,” a cargo train that chugs northward toward the United States. In the film’s most remarkable footage, O’Keefe and his team join with migrants, mostly from South and Central America, to ride The Beast, also known as “el Tren del Muerto,” or the Train of Death. O’Keefe talks to the migrants without condescension, asking them their destinations and what they plan to do when they get there, and their concerns about the perilous nature of the journey. We see the film crew race to jump on a moving train and clamber on top to sit in a pile of coal; O’Keefe is shocked at how truly dangerous this small element of the trip is and sympathizes with the migrants’ difficult choices. These scenes are among the film’s most affecting, along with the crew’s random encounter with a little girl who had just crossed the border after journeying from Guatemala by herself. There is a human dimension to illegal immigration, and O’Keefe does not ignore it. 

However, there is also an impersonal dimension to this massive population transfer, and O’Keefe determinedly aims to uncover it – to put a face to the institutions and administrators that benefit from the rough injection of millions of people into American society. From government agents to bus companies to nonprofit resettlement groups to private contractors running huge, walled compounds housing thousands of children, O’Keefe doggedly tries to penetrate the mechanics of a system that resolutely hides itself behind a screen of silence, usually in the name of “safety” and “privacy.”

Some of the film’s more comical moments pertain to these segments, such as when the team follows some just-arrived Chinese migrants in San Diego to an employment agency, where other Chinese aliens, already in the country for several months, complain that it’s much harder to live in the United States than they had imagined. O’Keefe tries to sniff out a connection between the owner of the agency and more powerful actors, but it emerges that there really isn’t much going on; in fact, the owner asks O’Keefe if he knows of a way to apply for government grants.

Elsewhere, O’Keefe tries to get information about the operations of several huge residential centers for unaccompanied minors and tries to spin their refusal to give him access to the centers or submit to interviews as evidence of the existence of vast, government-funded child sex trafficking networks. But it seems more likely, though no less troubling, that the open borders policy of the last four years has created a tremendous humanitarian crisis of alien children roaming the continent by themselves, and the government is probably trying to keep them from becoming prey to sex traffickers while they sort out where to send them. Though O’Keefe does not uncover a salacious network of child predators, his vigorous pursuit of the truth does reveal the existence of a large, shadowy, government-funded, and lucrative system of child “welfare.”

So, “Line In The Sand” is correct in the larger sense that billions of dollars are being spent managing this human flow, and many people are getting rich off of it. The last thing these parasitical administrators of the nonprofit industrial complex want is for the border to close. O’Keefe does a great job of capturing in real time the corruption of a local New York City nonprofit called La Jornada, whose leader, Pedro Rodriguez, evidently perpetrates fraud, demanding fees for services that the city provides for free. O’Keefe also sends a Spanish-speaking reporter undercover into the Roosevelt Hotel, New York City’s main processing center for newly-arrived migrants, which offers him free housing, medical care, and even airplane tickets, even though the reporter explains that he has no identification of any sort. How, O’Keefe asks, in our post 9/11 security-obsessed era, are we to make sense of a system that admits millions of unvetted foreigners into the country, and then offers to fly them anywhere they care to go?

“Line In The Sand” is rough in parts, but intentionally so. Its subject is so sprawling and tangled that a neat and clean representation would be a lie. Even with a nine-figure budget – which this film assuredly did not have – a documentary about the border and the 30 million-footed human swarm that has crossed it would be messy and incomplete. But James O’Keefe and his small team have done something remarkable. They have taken on the decade’s biggest story, given it form, and preserved the humanity of its subjects. It is worth watching.

Seth Barron is a writer in New York and author of the forthcoming “Weaponized from Humanix.”

As Pete Hegseth – president-elect Trump’s pick for SecDef – runs the gauntlet of the nomination process, amid a cornucopia of media amplified unsubstantiated accusations against him, Sirius XM host Megyn Kelly has warned that the political establishment, both Democrats and Republicans, are attempting to derail Trump’s second term before it has even begun by targeting his cabinet picks.

As Steve Watson writes at Modernity.news, Kelly pointed to Pete Hegseth, who who is fighting to stay in the running for Secretary of Defense amid a cornucopia of media amplified unsubstantiated accusations against him. 

Kelly warned that if Hegseth falls like Matt Gaetz did, then RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard and anyone else Trump picks will likely be next.

“If you don’t think they’re going to do this to RFK Jr., you haven’t been paying attention,” Kelly urged.

“I realize that Pete has his belly exposed. He has not led a perfect life, and there’s plenty if you want to start attacking his character in terms of his marital history and so on,” Kelly noted. 

“But as he said to me yesterday, he found around 20, I think it was 18 or so, he found his two J’s: his wife, Jen and Jesus, and started changing his life in a profound way,” she further explained.

The host continued, “Let’s say they get Pete’s scalp like they got Matt Gates’s scalp, Bobby Kennedy’s history makes Pete look like the consummate Boy Scout. He looks like he’s ready to enter the priesthood.”

“He’s a lot older, with a lot more of a checkered past… It’s not going to be pretty at all. So we are really at a crossroads here about whether we are going to sacrifice these nominees because of checkered personal pasts or not. It’s not going to get easier after Pete,” Kelly emphasized.

But, as Gery Berntsen writes at American Greatness, when Pete Hegseth is confirmed as Secretary of Defense, he will be a forceful agent of change for the betterment of the United States of America.

The abridged version of a famous Machiavelli quote, “Nothing is more difficult or dangerous than to attempt to change the order of things,” is in full view as we watch the process of confirming President Trump’s Secretary of Defense. When Pete Hegseth is confirmed as Secretary of Defense, he will be a forceful agent of change for the betterment of the United States of America.

President-elect Trump’s nominee, retired Army National Guard Major and Fox News host Peter Hegseth, is receiving considerable fire amid allegations of misconduct while CEO of Concerned Veterans for America (CVA).

I am writing this article because I was one of the founding members of CVA. I am an Air Force veteran and retired senior operations officer and chief of station in the Central Intelligence Agency. While at the CIA, I held major field command positions and was a senior manager in the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center (CTC). I led the CIA’s largest paramilitary element on the ground during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, seizing Kabul, initiating the battle of Tora Bora, and leading teams around the globe in several dangerous crises. I worked hand in glove with the most important elements of the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the FBI to secure and safeguard American interests. Based on 30 years of this experience and my personal knowledge of Pete Hegseth, I have no doubt that he will excel as Secretary of Defense.

CVA Backstory

Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) was created by a small group of veterans and one non-veteran who had all worked together in the failed 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain. In 2011, a member of that team contacted me and told me he had funding to create a nationwide veterans organization focused on addressing veteran needs, educating the public, and building support for those ideas.

CVA was created as a 501(c)(3), and I was asked to be its first CEO. I did not accept the position, as it would have required me to relocate to the Washington, D.C., area and I had just bought a home in Florida. I was also busy managing a security company in Afghanistan. I was then asked whether I would agree to become the Southeast Coordinator for CVA and work under Pete Hegseth. He was twenty years my junior but had served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and GITMO.

I read some articles by Hegseth, had seen him interviewed on television, and went to Washington, D.C., to meet him and the team. He was humble, direct, and smart. It was clear to me that he was policy-driven and capable, though only in his mid-30s. He was familiar with my published work and that of many others involved in counterterrorism and the war against Islamic radicalism. And critically, in our earliest discussions, he made it clear that he understood that taking care of our veterans’ medical needs was paramount.

He made healthcare the immediate focus of CVA. His vision matched the core values of the organization. While I was focusing on building out a solid ground game, Pete was challenging VA shortcomings, holding their feet to the fire on behalf of American veterans. As a concerned veteran, I was impressed.

Pete recruited other veterans like me who had significant national security backgrounds to build out the national organization. This was the very thing required of his position. He met with policymakers and funding sources who could move our organization forward.

We held dozens of events together over several years. We drank coffee by the gallon, but I never witnessed any performance impaired by alcohol. In fact, he handled a situation well that involved an employee who did have an alcohol-related incident. That man had a drinking problem and had made a pass at a female coordinator under his supervision. As I addressed the situation, I called Pete. After I described what happened, Pete was decisive. He asked me to place the employee in rehab, reassign him, and counsel him against ever doing that sort of thing again. We placed a letter in the employee’s personnel file and protected the female employee’s privacy and interests. This demonstrates Pete’s decisiveness, concern, and responsibility for CVA and its personnel. These decisions were made in a single day.

Senators interested in the moral compass of CVA should consult other senior managers from the organization. I will provide any interested senator with the names and contact information of people who conducted dozens of events and worked closely with Pete Hegseth for several years.

One policy issue addressed by Hegseth garnering much attention is his stated opposition to women in combat. Looking to the Afghan conflict ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ as a recent example, women made up approximately 10 percent of the force on the ground. They are in theatre and add great value as pilots, medical personnel, and intelligence personnel. Their work is high quality, but using them in combat arms needs to be addressed honestly.

The reality is very few men are capable of serving in a line infantry and combat arms-oriented unit. The demands on soldiers and Marines in terms of strength and physical endurance are beyond what civilians can comprehend. In college football or NFL practice, participants arrive fresh, work out for three to five hours, then take a shower and go home and sleep. In a line infantry element, significant and exhausting physical efforts go on day after day, hour after hour, with almost no sleep. Soldiers and Marines may be in battle for extended periods of time fighting for their very lives. There surely are a minuscule number of women in the country with the ability and desire to serve in the arduous conditions of battle; however, this number is so small that it makes writing policy on the matter difficult. Pete Hegseth’s view on the matter is formed by recent deployments. It better represents reality than the current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, the SecDef who helped surrender Afghanistan disgracefully and needlessly to an untrained and unorganized gang. Pete Hegseth would never have allowed such a surrender.

In 2016, I endorsed candidate Donald J. Trump. I was the fourth and final speaker before Sarasota County GOP Chairman Joseph Grutters would present candidate Trump at his first Florida rally at the Sun Dome in Tampa. Endorsing Trump created a conflict with the 501(c)(3) status of CVA, so I resigned in order to campaign freely for Trump.

I have held senior positions in the national security apparatus during times of combat and crisis. I have seen what is required of an effective leader, and I know Pete Hegseth will be an effective leader. Though not seeking employment, I would have no hesitation serving under Pete Hegseth if he were the Secretary of Defense. He has sound judgment on policy, management, and national security priorities. When making policy, he will remember the lessons of Armed Forces veterans who recently served in combat zones. Members of the U.S. Senate, I recommend you vote to confirm him.

Trump reaffirmed support for Hegseth Thursday, issuing a statement defending him.

“Pete Hegseth is doing very well. His support is strong and deep, much more so than the Fake News would have you believe. He was a great student – Princeton/Harvard educated – with a Military state of mind,” Trump said.

“He will be a fantastic, high energy, Secretary of Defense, one who leads with charisma and skill. Pete is a WINNER, and there is nothing that can be done to change that!!!” the president-elect further urged.

Hegseth has committed to staying in contention as the defense secretary.

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated regulations on Dec. 3 that will prevent PFAS, often referred to as forever chemicals, from being fast-tracked for approval through an exemption process.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a family of forever chemicals used in a variety of products, are known to resist breaking down and therefore persist in the environment. They have also been linked to serious health problems.

The new rule ends the eligibility of PFAS for the Low Volume Exemptions process, which allowed certain chemicals to bypass the full review if they were to be produced in limited quantities. This exemption rule has historically applied to more than 600 PFAS compounds.

The updated rules are designed to ensure that PFAS undergo a comprehensive safety review before they can be manufactured. According to the EPA, this change is designed to protect public health and the environment by subjecting PFAS to the agency’s full risk assessment process.

Senior EPA official Michael Freedhoff said in a statement that the agency’s review of new chemicals should encourage innovation while ensuring safety before new chemicals “enter commerce.”

“Today, we’ve modernized our chemical reviews and continued to protect people from unsafe new PFAS,” said Freedhoff, the EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

PFAS are used in a wide range of products, from cookware to firefighting foam. They have also been linked to health problems, including some cancers, kidney issues, and reduced fertility. PFAS have accumulated in the environment and in human and animal tissue, sparking widespread concern.

Under the updated rule, manufacturers must provide detailed information about a chemical’s uses, exposure potential, and health effects before approval.

The rule also expands the EPA’s oversight of chemicals classified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, ensuring stricter controls for substances that pose significant risks.

The changes are part of broader efforts by the EPA to strengthen its chemical review process following the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act. These amendments require the agency to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment for new chemicals before they can enter the market.

The rule will take effect 30 days after its official publication in the Federal Register.

Authored by Guy Ciarrocchi via RealClearPennsylvania,

Trump returns to the White House. The GOP has majorities in the Senate and House. Now what?

It’s time to make America great again. To fix what “they” broke. To flip the narrative, so that government works for us – not the other way around. Yet, where to begin?

Inflation. Cleaning-up the Justice Department – including directives targeting parents attending school board meetings, “pro-lifers,” and Catholics who like Latin Mass. The hostages held by Hamas, and Israel’s fight with Hamas and other terror groups. Men playing women’s sports. The Ukrainian-Russian war. Securing the border and doing something about our many million illegal immigrants. Closing down the failed Department of Education. Unleashing American energy – oil, natural gas, and nuclear. Holding higher education accountable. Protecting American farmland from the Chinese. Dealing with the insanity of the United Nations. Rebuilding our military and refocusing it on national security. Stopping “climate crisis” madness. Making America healthy. Fighting anti-Semitism. Combating violent crime in our cities.

The Biden/Harris administration and its counterparts in many cities and states leave behind a mess. They have misused and abused the powers of government.

For those more focused on governing than campaigning, the bigger thrill is not Election Night celebrations but undoing harmful policies and enacting good ones. Now the heavy lifting starts.

A smart, effective roadmap has to be a marriage of MAGA and conservative political priorities with “kitchen-table” issues. In short, prioritize the legislative agenda around the coalition that helped Republicans win Pennsylvania and other swing states.

With a narrow House majority and the inevitable Chuck Schumer-led filibusters in the Senate, this kind of focus will be critical to pushing issues over the finish line. Plus, these policies – and the legislators supporting them – must withstand the inevitable resistance from special interests and the legacy media, many already beginning their assault against the Trump agenda. All the more reason to maintain the diverse but fragile coalition that prevailed on November 5.

Trying to do everything at once, however, will drain resources and confuse the public, leaving Republicans vulnerable to obstruction from Democrats and their allies. Unifying priorities, effective messages, and well-executed legislative plans are essential to making progress and improving the lives of Americans. Success will offer opportunities to grow public support – and to accomplish even more. And yes, to win future elections, too.

What unites MAGA, conservative Republicans, first-time voters in rural Pennsylvania, and black and Hispanic voters in Philadelphia, Reading, and elsewhere who supported Trump for the first time? The “kitchen-table issues” that the GOP talked about. The practical things that matter to those of us focused on reality, rather than trying to advance an ideology or seek “revenge.”

Priority one must be fighting inflation – making life more affordable. As Ronald Reagan explained: “Inflation is the cruelest tax.” It eats away at every paycheck, every week, every day.

This will take time, but the reversal begins with a few vital steps. Start by clawing back the unspent billions allocated for the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (how Orwellian a name!).

Next, the United States must be energy-independent. This lowers the cost of everything. Permits for drilling must be approved so that American oil and natural gas can be unleashed to lower prices, raise our quality of life, and improve national security. Additionally, the holds on oil and gas leases must be lifted. Lastly, we should allow Pennsylvanians – and our friends in Ohio and West Virginia – to sell liquified natural gas to our European allies. We will make money and create jobs, while helping Germany, France, Poland and others get out from under Vladimir Putin’s thumb.

Be prepared to implement as many of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s DOGE recommendations as possible. We must not only stop the growth and reduce the power of the federal government; we must also eliminate wasteful spending, regulations, and even whole agencies that make it harder for businesses to operate.

Next, secure our borders and address the illegal immigration crisis. Most of these people are being entirely subsidized by taxpayers. Start with the known criminals, then move on to those who have no jobs or host family here. We need to restore our borders and respect for the law – and stop encouraging people to sneak in, live for free, and falsely claim “amnesty.”

Next, peace. Work to get our hostages home and to stabilize the firefights around the world that drain our resources, divert our energies, and pull American service members into wars. Support Israel in its effort to rescue the hostages and eliminate terrorists, their masterminds, and their funders. Work to bring the Ukraine-Russia war to an end.

Make life more affordable and strengthen our economy. Secure our border and protect Americans and those respecting the rule of law. Strengthen our resolve with allies, support our military, and build peace through strength.

These are the goals and promises that unified the Trump coalition and won the election. From here, they can move on to other worthy and important goals – everything from school choice to tax reform, from the mess at the UN to protecting American farmland and rooting out the waste and inefficiencies of our bureaucracies and agencies.

But first, focus on kitchen-table issues that unite voters. Show voters that you’ve listened. Prove that you share their priorities. Gain their trust, grow the cause, and go on from there. It’s an approach that makes sense not just politically but more importantly, for the good of the nation. 

President-elect Donald Trump has weighed in on the rapid-moving events in Syria, where jihadist groups backed by Turkey are entering the outside environs of the capital of Damascus. The embattled President Bashar al-Assad still appears to be in residence, but his future is far from certain.

“Opposition fighters in Syria, in an unprecedented move, have totally taken over numerous cities, in a highly coordinated offensive, and are now on the outskirts of Damascus, obviously preparing to make a very big move toward taking out Assad,” he began the statement on Truth Social.

Trump emphasized that Washington should stay completely out, calling the situation a “mess” and that it is “not our fight”. He posted the same message on X.

It alludes to Russia’s inability to continue protecting Syria, given it is bogged down in the nearly three year long Ukraine war, while also blasting former President Obama’s past Syria policies and that he laid down ‘red lines’. 

Below is the full statement:

Russia, because they are so tied up in Ukraine, and with the loss there of over 600,000 soldiers, seems incapable of stopping this literal march through Syria, a country they have protected for years. This is where former President Obama refused to honor his commitment of protecting the RED LINE IN THE SAND, and all hell broke out, with Russia stepping in. But now they are, like possibly Assad himself, being forced out, and it may actually be the best thing that can happen to them. There was never much of a benefit in Syria for Russia, other than to make Obama look really stupid.

Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!”

Opposition fighters in Syria, in an unprecedented move, have totally taken over numerous cities, in a highly coordinated offensive, and are now on the outskirts of Damascus, obviously preparing to make a very big move toward taking out Assad. Russia, because they are so tied up…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 7, 2024

It must be remembered that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group backed by NATO member Turkey and leading this anti-Assad onslaught, is a US-designated terror organization.

A big question is: what comes next? While HTS has morphed from Syrian Al-Qaeda, it is trying to present to the West a softer image, claiming that it will protect minorities including Christians. However, its recent past clearly demonstrates that it rules territories under its control with Taliban-style force and brutality.

Much of the nation’s population until now has stuck with Assad given the alternative is Somalia-style fracturing and rule by competing jihadist warlords. One thing is for sure: Trump will inherent dealing with an absolute tragic mess in Syria, the heartland of the Middle East, upon his opening days in office.

Except the US has backed these Islamic rebels, for the very purpose of removing Assad who has protected the Christians in Syria and for that purpose, we should remove all support from the rebels. #orthodox https://t.co/eG7dbsYaKb

— Fr. Michael Lillie (@FrLillie) December 7, 2024

Currently, US forces still occupy one-third of Syria, in the oil and gas areas of the northeast. During Trump’s first term he expressed an effort to “bring the troops home” but it’s widely reported he was stymied by his generals and national security officials

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

After a screaming match between acting Secret Service Director Ron Rowe and Texas Rep. Pat Fallon erupted at a Thursday House hearing on the attempted assassination attempts against President-elect Donald Trump, new details are emerging about the circumstances that sparked the outburst.

Several Secret Service sources question whether Rowe has perjured himself during the explosive exchange.

The face-off occurred during the final meeting of the House Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Trump when Fallon produced a photo of Rowe standing behind President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris at a 9/11 memorial event in New York City in September. Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance appeared on the right side of the photo.

The congressman, a Texas Republican, pressed Rowe on why he had positioned himself behind Biden when normal Secret Service protocol would place the most senior member of the president’s detail in that position to provide the best protection to the president. The event took place on Sept. 11, just days before the second assassination attempt against Trump at one of the president-elect’s golf courses in Florida.

At the time, the outcome of the election was still unknown, and Rowe was trying to prove that he could quickly rehabilitate the agency’s image after the cataclysmic failures during the July 13 Butler rally that nearly led to Trump’s assassination and did result in the death of Corey Comperatore, a retired local fireman.

Fallon accused Rowe of endangering Biden’s and Harris’ lives by taking their top two agents out of position because he “wanted to be visible because you were auditioning for the job.”

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas promoted Rowe from deputy director to interim chief of the agency in the wake of the Butler rally. The previous director, Kimberly Cheatle, had resigned after disastrous testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Rowe responded swiftly and angrily to Fallon’s line of questions.

“Congressman, what you’re seeing is the [Special Agent in Charge of the Detail] out of the picture’s view,” Rowe said. “And that is a day where we remember the more than 3,000 people that died on 9/11,” Rowe added. “I actually responded to Ground Zero. I was there going through the ashes of the World Trade Center. I was there at Fresh Kills,” Rowe added, referencing a Staten Island landfill where debris was taken.

Fallon quickly interjected: “I’m not asking you that.”

“I was there, congressman!” Rowe bellowed while pointing aggressively at Fallon before accusing him of acting like a “bully” and politicizing 9/11.

BREAKING: All h*ll breaks loose as USSS Director Rowe and GOP Rep Fallon get in a shouting match over assass*nation attempts on Trump.

Fallon was sharing a photo of Biden with Trump at the 9/11 commemoration to criticize Rowe.

“Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes!!” pic.twitter.com/RNUfiR5A1a

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 5, 2024

Rowe was already on edge from Fallon’s pointed questioning just minutes before. The congressman asked Rowe whether he knew that Trump was facing a threat from a foreign actor while the Secret Service advance team was preparing for the Butler rally, a likely reference to assassination plots by Iran against Trump’s life. If he did know, the congressman asked why he didn’t intervene to provide a counter-surveillance unit or a full Counter Assault Team, top Secret Service security assets, in addition to the counter snipers the agency provided These additional assets, Fallon asserted, could have prevented the assassination attempt from taking place.

An eyewitness to the 9/11 memorial this year tells RealClearPolitics that Rowe’s decision to take the place of the top two agents in charge of the president’s and vice president’s detail spurred resentment among the ranks. The source said there were toe marks placed on the ground with every attendee’s name and title. Rowe’s original toe mark was three rows back.

Instead of simply standing where he was designated, Rowe disregarded the arrangement and placed himself behind Biden and Harris. The leaders of those details then had to squeeze in so they could be within arm’s reach of the president and vice president if they faced any threats. The source also noted that Rowe’s wife, a longtime Secret Service employee, was the photographer for the event that day and was snapping “a ton of action shots of Ron standing in his place of prominence.”

During Thursday’s testy shouting match, Fallon demanded to know whether Rowe had a gun and radio on him during the ceremony, an apparent reference to whether he was operational and equipped to respond to a threat against Biden’s or Harris’ lives if any arose.

Rowe retorted that he did have a radio and a gun on him at the ceremony and insisted that the protective mission was not compromised by his decision to move to a more prominent position. The Secret Service press office provided a lengthy explanation of his Secret Service roles in New York City after the 9/11 attacks but didn’t respond to a follow-up question from RealClearPolitics on whether he stood by those remarks about having a gun and radio on him during the ceremony.  

Rank-and-file agents were incensed over Rowe’s screaming match and said they doubted the acting director’s testimony that he had a radio during the 9/11 ceremony this year because he wasn’t wearing an earpiece to hear the intelligence chatter on a radio. They also said top Secret Service officials usually do not wear earpieces or ballistic missile vests to ceremonies like the one on 9/11 because they spend most of their time meeting with other officials, not monitoring radio traffic for threats.

After the blow-up went viral on social media, the Secret Service provided a statement clarifying Rowe’s work in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Acting Director Ronald Rowe volunteered to support the U.S. Secret Service’s official response efforts in New York following 9/11,” Guglielmi said in a statement. “He was a part of the second response rotation, which occurred in mid-October 2001. As part of his duties, he worked to support recovery efforts at both Fresh Kills Landfill and Ground Zero.”

“Acting Director Rowe joined the U.S. Secret Service in 1999 and was working as a shift agent assigned to protect a visiting foreign dignitary in Washington, D.C. on the day of the 9/11 attacks,” Guglielmi added.

“In reference to your questions about the 9/11 memorial, all detail personnel were present and had complete access to their protectees during the memorial,” he concluded.

While most of the hearing recycled previous revelations about the agency’s failures during the Butler rally, Rep. Mark Green, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, also expressed outrage in expletive-laced questions over how the agency missed such obvious security vulnerabilities.

Green said the agency’s conduct during the July shooting seemed “lackadaisical” and slammed the agents in charge of the Butler rally, whom he said showed up to the event and “didn’t give a shit.”

The Tennessee Republican who previously served as an Army doctor argued that the Secret Service has a “command-climate” problem. “There was apathy and complacency, period, and that’s your mission,” Green told Rowe.

Rowe provided a vague response to Green’s concerns.

“So, we are reorganizing, reimagining the organization that includes making sure that we are developing leadership programs,” he said.

In his opening statement, Rowe said he spent the months since the assassination items focused on implementing reforms to ensure that the failures at Butler never happen again.

“I have reflected extensively on the agency’s substandard performance during the advance for the Butler rally,” he said. “It has been my singular focus to bring much-needed reform to the Secret Service, to be an agent of change, to challenge previous assumptions – [to ensure that] the brave men and women of the Secret Service have the resources, leadership, and assets that they need to be successful in carrying out our protective mission.”

Addressing criticism that the agents involved in the poor planning for and execution of the Butler rally, have not been held accountable, Rowe expressed frustration with the length of time it takes to provide “accountability” for the failures.

“Let me be clear: There will be accountability, and that accountability is occurring,” he said. “It is an extensive review that requires time to ensure due process and the pace of this process, quite frankly, it does frustrate me, but it is essential that we recognize the gravity of our failure.”

Where is oil headed? Most analysts flipped bearish following the Trump win with promises to “drill baby drill”. But how will tariffs factor in? Sanctions? War? Friday night concluded ZeroHedge’s first live-premium debate with energy analysts Josh Young of Bison Interests (The Bull) and Paul Sankey of Sankey Research (The Bear) who answered these questions and more.

Expertly moderated by “The Macro Tourist” Kevin Muir, we’ve compiled key moments below but encourage all readers to listen to the full debate (linked at the bottom).

The Bear Case:

As Mr. Sankey notes, “US refiners are running at very high levels of absolute throughput… but absolute levels of barrels going through the refineries seem to be really crushing margins.” In essence, the challenge of high volumes but low profitability, especially during seasonal downturns. 

He adds, “it’s seasonally absolutely normal for this to be a very bad time of year because obviously people are not driving to the beach,” pointing to the predictable lull in demand. Global overcapacity, particularly China’s modernized refining sector and the retirement of inefficient “teapot refineries,” complicates the balance between capacity and demand. Sankey underscores that “the US hasn’t built a new refinery since the seventies,” highlighting the long-term decline in domestic refining capacity.

pic.twitter.com/06pCmK8ARh

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) December 7, 2024

Sankey goes on to argue that while demand is important, “the pricing principle is productivity of supply.” When oil productivity falls, prices rise. In the 60s and 70s, “OPEC cutting supply… productivity fell and the price rocketed.” When non-OPEC supply increased in the 80s and 90s, productivity rose, and prices fell. In the 2000s, China’s demand surged, but “you weren’t getting a supply response, and the price rose.”

From 2012 onwards, U.S. oil productivity improvements put pressure on prices, as the U.S. added 10-13 million barrels per day of supply. Sankey points out that this “has been the problem for OPEC” as U.S. output has “eaten their lunch.” The crucial turning point will be when U.S. productivity declines: “When the U.S. productivity begins to roll over… we’re looking for it.” Sankey predicts that in two to three years, U.S. production will begin to struggle, which could shift his outlook: “When that turns to decline, then you buy them all.” 

pic.twitter.com/hvCaHz5OeM

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) December 7, 2024

The Bull Case:

On the other side, Chinese demand remains strong, says Mr. Young who challenges a notion put forth by Sankey that we are likely to hit peak global demand. Young emphasizing that despite the growth of electric vehicles (EVs) and LNG-powered trucks, “they still represent the minority of vehicles that are produced in China and sold.” Gasoline-powered vehicles continue to increase, and diesel remains dominant in China’s truck fleet. Clear and ongoing demand for traditional fuels.

On Chinese refinery capacity, Young suggests that it reflects “revealed preferences” rather than just environmental initiatives. “I struggle to come up with a bearish oil narrative for China growing their refinery capacity significantly in the last few years.” 

pic.twitter.com/sern3rb3JR

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) December 7, 2024

Compounding strong demand is weak supply, particularly in nat gas, says Young. 

“We’re starting to see core gas producers come in and pay pretty high prices for assets that are nearly fully developed.” Young reveals that liquored-up energy investment bankers confided in him earlier this week about their concerns of limited inventory, sharing that they “are close to out of these core inventory places.”

pic.twitter.com/rt2nNuBDP9

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) December 7, 2024

Dark Horse Event To Change The Thesis

Muir closed by asking Young and Sankey what could change their oil outlooks. Young stated, “If there isn’t some sort of catastrophic tariff on China and there’s further stimulus in China, but Chinese demand materially disappoints and goes negative in 2025, I think that would make a very uncomfortable situation for an oil bull.”

Sankey focused on supply, emphasizing its outsized impact over the demand side of the price equation. He specifically noted the impact of U.S. shale production. U.S. shale has added 10-13 million barrels per day and if this productivity declines in the next two to three years, Sankey said, his bearish view will shift.

In short, the bulls should keep an eye out for weakness in Chinese demand. Bears should watch for declining U.S. shale production.

pic.twitter.com/wqvAad2gIv

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) December 7, 2024

To hear the full Bull and Bear discussion that went for over an hour, you must sign up for ZeroHedge Premium or Professional tiers. Pro subs additionally gain access to institutional research from the major banks to help you gain an edge when trading. Sign up before next Friday evening when Michael Pento and Lance Roberts debate as Pento calls for a 50%+ market crash while Roberts remains long S&P, exclusively for paid ZH subs.