Russia appears to be trying to evade Western sanctions on its LNG tanker fleet by transferring ownership of vessels to a newly-created firm based in a free trade zone in Dubai, Bloomberg reported on Friday.
Three LNG tankers, previously managed by the Russian companies Gazprom and Sovcomflot, now have a new owner, a Dubai-based firm. The vessels Velikiy Novgorod, Pskov, and La Perouse saw aspects of their management transferred to Matias Ship Management, the newly established company in Dubai, in September, Bloomberg reported, citing global shipping database Equasis.
Matias Ship Management’s registered address is at the Meydan Hotel in Dubai, a free trade zone, where other companies suspected of helping Russia amass its shadow fleet of oil and LNG tankers are based, according to Bloomberg.
The three LNG tankers have been serving the smaller Portovaya LNG export plant on Russia’s Baltic Sea. Portovaya LNG is not subject to Western sanctions or export restrictions.
Two of the tankers, Velikiy Novgorod and La Perouse, are under UK sanctions.
Velikiy Novgorod was slapped with sanctions just yesterday as the UK imposed the largest round of sanctions to date against Russia’s shadow fleet, designating an additional 18 oil tankers and four LNG tankers as it seeks to cut critical revenues for Vladimir Putin.
Russia has started to amass a dark fleet of tankers to ship its LNG in vessel ownership transfers similar to the moves that Moscow began after the invasion of Ukraine to create a shadow fleet to export oil and products in the face of Western sanctions.
Some tankers have recently departed from the sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 terminal in northern Russia, signaling Moscow’s continued efforts to circumvent Western restrictions.
In August, the U.S. State Department intensified efforts to derail Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 exports by targeting companies involved in the development of the project and vessels found to have loaded LNG from the facility.
Hungary’s Orban Blasts Zelensky’s “More Than Frightening” Victory Plan
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s office has issue a strong negative response to Ukrainian Presdient Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan” – which was presented before European Union leaders this week.
Zelensky’s plan, if implemented, would be the shortest path to World War III, a statement by the political director of the Hungarian prime minister’s office said.
The response further stressed that the EU must be willing to embark on a path of negotiations, de-escalation, and ultimately peace.
Orban had posted his initial reaction to the plan on social media on Thursday, which began, “Today President Zelenskyy will present his plan for victory. What he outlined yesterday in the Ukrainian parliament was more than frightening.”
It continued, “Zelensky’s ‘victory plan’ is the shortest path to unleashing World War III, so Hungary does not support it.”
And referencing Ursula von der Leyen, he wrote further, “I am one of those who urge the European Union to change its current strategy. The European Union went into this war with a badly organized, badly executed, badly calculated strategy, for which the president of the Commission bears the main responsibility.”
“We are losing this war, so the strategy is not working. But this does not mean that we need more war, more dangerous and long-range weapons — it means that we need to change from a war strategy to a peace strategy. We need a cease-fire and peace talks!” he stressed in apparent reference to Europe and the NATO alliance.
Orbán pledged that he will lobby German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron to start negotiations with Moscow “on behalf of the entire EU” as soon as possible in order “to find a way out of this situation.”
Hungary’s defense minister also chimed in as follows…
❌ We do not support @ZelenskyyUa’s victory plan, as it will only lead to further distraction. #Hungary wants a peaceful, prosperous Ukraine as a neighbor, and only viable peace strategy can bring an #end to the war. #MoDpic.twitter.com/1i2Dpe3rl9
— Kristóf Szalay-Bobrovniczky (@SzBobrovniczky) October 18, 2024
The Hungarian PM has recently made it clear that he doesn’t share the same enthusiasm for Ukraine’s risky Kursk offensive (which started in August) as other European leaders, having expressed the desire for a ceasefire in the southern Russian oblast, and expressing the need to safeguard European energy supplies ahead of winter.
The Head of Operations of the leftist British Labour Party, which is now in government after 14 years of being the opposition, declared in a LinkedIn post that she is organising a party of 100 staff members to be sent to swing states in the US to campaign for Kamala Harris, prompting charges of election interference.
Sofia Patel proudly announced her plan, advertising that she has 10 spots left with free accommodation for any rabid British TDS sufferers who want to stick their nose into the US election.
🚨 NEW: Nearly 100 current and former Labour Party staff are going to battleground states in the US election to campaign for Kamala Harris, with the party offering to ‘sort your housing’ pic.twitter.com/12EBTkuNL5
Perhaps the most entertaining part of this is the notion that Americans in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina would listen to a word any lefty British metropolitan elites have to say.
I’m crying:
These people believe that Americans in…
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Virginia
And
Nevada
Are going to cozy up to British communists?
I mean- maybe if you sent them to California or Vermont.
Let them do it, it’ll be the final nail in the coffin of Kamala’s campaign.
Holy fuck, this is definitely one of the stupidest political self-owns ever.
Given the hot issues in this election, how can anybody think that door to door campaigners with *foreign accents* are anything but a way for the Harris campaign to shoot itself in the foot? https://t.co/RHNTuLQ2Ex
You silly poofs need to fuck off and fix your stabby illegal alien criminal invader problem before coming to Freedomland in an attempt to spread your retardation.
Perhaps Labour should be concentrating more on the crippling crisis in the British National Health Service, or the hundreds of small boats full of illegal migrants that wash up every week, or fail to reach shore, drowning everyone on board.
Might be a better use of their time.
* * *
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.
Turkey aims to spend a total of $47 billion on defense and security for the next year, its highest ever spending, a government budget proposal showed on Thursday.
Turkish Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz said during a briefing at the presidency that the government aims to earmark 913.9 billion Turkish lira ($26.8bn) for defense spending. This would also include 165 billion lira needed for the defense industry support fund.
The budget also envisions 694.5 billion lira for domestic security needs, which cover the interior ministry, the police, the national intelligence agency and other related agencies’ expenditure.
Turkey’s defense spending has been steadily increasing in recent years. The 2024 defense and security budget was around $40bn, meaning 2025’s defense spending will see a 17.5 percent increase.
Ankara is running military operations in Syria and Iraq, and operates military bases in Libya, Somalia and Qatar. Additionally, it has a permanent presence in Northern Cyprus.
Since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came to power in 2003, the Turkish government has been making large investments in the local arms industry, from armed drones, ballistic missiles and cannons to national warships, tank projects and armored vehicles.
Regional escalations
Ankara is also concerned by the military escalations in the region. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said in televised remarks on Thursday that Turkey has to ready itself for an Israel-Iran war, and would therefore take every measure available.
The government earlier this month put forward a new tax venue to inject more cash into the Defense Industry Support Fund. The scheme proposed asking citizens who have credit cards with limits above 100,000 lira to annually pay 750 lira to cover the additional defense projects ordered by the government.
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) withdrew the proposal earlier this week after severe criticism from the public. The opposition and experts said it was unconstitutional because it was seeking a fee from a credit line rather than an actual income. Ankara is currently exploring other means to satisfy the expenditure.
Turkish Treasury and Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek earlier this week said the government had ordered the defense industry to focus on building a “Steel Dome” to protect the country against possible aerial threats, including missiles and drones.
“These are expensive systems in terms of advanced technology,” he told Turkish NTV. “We have been investing money in the 5th generation aircraft for a long time. Now the engine needs to be developed.”
Simsek added that over 1,000 projects in the defense industry were currently underway. “All of them are high technology,” he said. “From long-range instruments to 5th generation fighter jets to air defense systems…These are all expensive.”
Ronald Reagan’s query to the American people in his October 28, 1980, debate with incumbent President Jimmy Carter was so simple and so devastating that it is still employed today: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” While most Americans are far worse off today than they were four years ago, with rising prices, inflation, a hollow economy, and unchecked immigration, so too are the U.S., its allies, and its partner’s national security interests, which are far worse off than they were four years ago.
Four years ago, there was stability in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. Now Europe’s “long peace,” that is, no major war in Europe since 1945, has been shattered by Russia’s horrific invasion of Ukraine. This war has resulted in the deaths of over one million humans and the displacement of millions more. The Middle East is roiling with conflict due to Hamas’ October 7, 2023, unprovoked attack on Israel and its consequences—the Iranian-backed Houthis interdiction of international shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, the attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon and ultimately unprecedented attacks from Iran against Israel with drones and missiles. The Indo-Pacific is rife with unrest principally due to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) hyper-aggression against key U.S. allies and partners like India, Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan, and against the American people themselves.
The cause of this instability is the Biden-Harris administration’s ideological obsession to “manage America’s decline” and the subsequent policies they adopted in the last almost four years. The Biden-Harris administration failed to deter the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This war is a humanitarian nightmare for all concerned; it is a stalemated conventional conflict, evincing an intensity of combat not seen in Europe since 1945. The war also entails the risk of nuclear escalation, the tremendous cost of which the U.S. and its NATO allies would not escape. In addition, this administration has fundamentally failed to support Israel by not holding Iran to account—even worse by providing Tehran the funding to expand their terrorism against Americans.
However, in the pantheon of Biden’s failures, it is towards the PRC that the Biden administration has made its greatest foreign policy fiascos. The Biden-Harris administration has continued the failed “Engagement” policies with the PRC that have aided the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at a time of great peril. The Biden-Harris administration ignores the existential nature of the CCP threat because it seeks to continue the Engagement school of thought through what we call the Biden-Harris administration’s “neo-Engagement” policy.
With the exception of the Trump presidency, Engagement has been the dominant U.S. approach to the PRC since Bill Clinton. It asserts that the PRC is not an existential threat to the U.S. Far from it—the Engagement school contends the Sino-American relationship should be cooperative. Any troubles may be addressed by more cooperation with the PRC and accommodation of the interests of the CCP to sustain that cooperation. In essence, the Engagers are appeasers. Unfortunately, their arguments are ubiquitous and dominate U.S. foreign policy toward the PRC. Engagement dominates Wall Street, foundations, think tanks, universities, media, Silicon Valley, K Street, major law firms, and government. Even after the fiasco of allowing a PRC intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance balloon to fly over the entirety of America and the conga line of Biden-Harris cabinet officials traveling to Beijing to kowtow before Xi Jinping, the nadir was the November 2023 meeting between Biden and Xi near San Francisco. Beyond the obsession by Biden-Harris to resume military-to-military exchanges despite the People’s Liberation Army’s increased threatening behavior, 400 of America’s richest business leaders attended a dinner with the PRC’s dictator—Xi Jinping. These “titans” of America’s economy gave the CCP dictator two standing ovations while Xi explained his vision of tyranny—on American soil—and how the American business elite could help him sustain it.
The failed Biden-Harris neo-Engagement policies have allowed the CCP to escape the costs of its many decades of misrule but also provided the window for the CCP’s hyper-aggression over the last four years. Since assuming office, the Biden-Harris administration has overseen and done nothing as the PRC built over 300 nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) silos in central and western China, upgraded the submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) aboard their sea-based leg of their triad, expanded their ballistic missile submarine production facilities, and introduced a new nuclear bomber, the H-20. This aircraft very closely resembles the B-2 stealth bomber. Additionally, the Biden-Harris regime has sat by as PLA Air Force H-6 bombers have for the first time flown nuclear bomber profiles with their Russian Long Range Aviation counterparts into the Alaskan Air Defense Identification zone.
By every metric, the CCP is flexing its strategic muscles by expanding its nuclear arsenal and strategic reach. The PRC continues to agress relentlessly against U.S. national security interests. While the pace of their aggression is quickening, the Biden-Harris administration is cutting the size of the Department of Defense. For example, Biden-Harris continues to decommission more warships than it builds, as demonstrated by their Fiscal Year 2025 budget that procures just six warships, the lowest number of any budget submission since 2006.
This degradation of America’s maritime power is especially pernicious as the situation in the South China Sea, near Scarborough Shoal or Sabina Shoal, is dramatically worsening. Likewise, the PLA is increasing its pressure on Taiwan through unceasing operations to prepare for an invasion. In the past month, the PLAAF violated Japanese territorial waters for the first time ever. Moreover, the PLAN and Russian Navy sailed into the Gulf of Alaska, while it has been confirmed that PLA is supplying Russia with military weapons to aid Moscow in its war against Kyiv. There are also credible reports, including from the South Korean Minister of Defense, that the North Koreans are directly aiding the Russian war effort.
In his famous debate with Carter, Reagan also asked Americans if they believed America was as respected and whether America was as strong as four years ago. Once again, the answer to that question today is no. America was far more respected by its foes and was stronger four years ago than today. America was seen by its key allies in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific as a far better, more reliable, and more confident ally than today. The result is that a Harris presidency would continue these neo-Engagement policies to embolden enemies and continue to punish allies and partners. Only a Trump presidency will end failed policies of neo-Engagement and return the U.S. to the Reaganesque certainty of the previous Cold War that “the U.S. wins, the CCP loses.”
***
James E. Fanell and Bradley A. Thayer are authors of Embracing Communist China: America’s Greatest Strategic Failure. The views expressed are their own.
Which College Degrees Have The Best Return On Investment?
Career prospects, and especially expected lifetime salaries, can be a strong motivator or deterrent in pursuing certain college degrees.
Not all degrees guarantee higher lifetime earnings compared to entering the workforce after high school without a degree – as some degrees may end up costing more than their financial benefits.
This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows the average return on investment of a degree in the U.S., based on analysis from CollegeNPV of data from the U.S. Department of Education and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The return on investment of a degree is the expected lifetime value of the degree (net of debt) compared to entering the workforce after high school.
STEM Degrees Have The Best Bang For Their Buck
Below, we show the average return on investment of various degrees in the U.S.
Field of Study
Average return on investment
Engineering
$570,616
Computer and Information Sciences
$477,229
Mathematics
$340,875
Engineering Technicians
$311,141
Business
$205,191
Architecture
$196,711
Nursing and Health Professions
$194,756
Physics, Chemistry and Geology
$168,822
Social Sciences
$118,454
Interdisciplinary Studies
$69,656
Biology
$63,913
Agriculture
$59,556
Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender and Group Studies
$42,959
Legal Studies
$38,999
Natural Resources and Conservation
$28,985
Communication and Journalism
$28,654
Homeland Security, Law Enforcement and Firefighting
$27,284
Foreign Languages
$25,750
Public Administration and Social Services
$7,787
Philosophy and Religious Studies
$6,011
History
$4,938
Fitness, Parks and Recreation
-$1,078
Liberal Arts and General Studies
-$13,337
Psychology
-$15,644
Education
-$20,075
Family and Human Sciences
-$24,540
Communications Technologies
-$28,911
English Language
-$39,057
Theology
-$91,749
Visual and Performing Arts
-$104,015
Engineering, computer and information sciences, mathematics, and engineering technician degrees are the most valuable degrees in the U.S. when looking at expected lifetime income minus debt compared to working right after high school without a degree.
As for specific programs, Harvard University’s computer science degree ranks first for ROI, according to CollegeNPV.
Graduates of this program can expect an ROI of over $4 million in their lifetime, with $256,539 in median income and $14,000 in median debt.
On the other end, humanities degrees like visual and performing arts, theology, and English are among the least valuable degrees when looking at lifetime earnings.
With a negative ROI of about $39,000, English language programs have also experienced the greatest decrease in graduates, with 32% fewer students completing these programs compared to 10 years prior.
To learn more about some of the top universities in the U.S., check out this graphic that shows which universities produce the most startup founders.
The most powerful force shaping the future of education is the sharp decline in babies being born in the United States and worldwide. As Americans have fewer children, and fewer children immigrate from abroad, the school-age population will decline dramatically over the next few decades.
The United States has experienced a baby bust once before in the wake of the baby boom in the 1970s and 1980s, which gives us some idea of what to expect. But unlike the previous baby bust, which was a temporary artifact of the boomers ageing out of school, the upcoming decline in school-age population has no end in sight.
We are about to experience a baby bust on steroids. Public school enrollments reached a peak of 50.8 million in 2019 and are projected to drop below 47 million by 2030. But that’s just the start. This year U.S. fertility rates hit an all-time low. Since the smaller number of children born this year will barely be entering school by 2030, the steep decline in school enrollments will accelerate after 2030.
In 20 states, public school enrollments are projected to fall by more than 10 percent by 2031. Almost all of these states with larger enrollment declines are blue states, with Hawaii, California, New Mexico, and New York leading with drops between 19 and 21 percent.
During the previous baby bust, declining school populations forced districts to close schools and layoff teachers. Job insecurity among teachers caused them to flock to teachers’ unions for protection, transforming them from local organizations concentrated in a few big cities into national political powerhouses.
As the share of the population with children in school declined in the 1970s, property tax revolts arose across the country, most notably with Proposition 13 in California in 1978. With access to local property taxes becoming more constrained, school districts turned to the state and federal governments for funds. The teachers’ unions were able to use their increasing membership and political power to get President Carter to create the Department of Education in 1980, gaining an institutional ally in advocating for increased federal funding.
This shift from local property tax to state and federal sources of school funding was successful in reducing the extent of school closures and teacher layoffs, but it made schools more financially vulnerable to future reductions in enrollment. Unlike local property tax, state and federal money is typically allocated to districts on a per pupil basis. If the number of pupils drops, funding is cut by a commensurate amount.
As school enrollments start to plummet, so will their funding. The various tricks that districts have employed in the past to compensate financially are less available to rescue them. Districts might hope that state governments could significantly increase per pupil funding levels to offset enrollment drops, but state budgets are already stretched thin.
This is especially true as the increasing share of the population over the age of 65 places more demands on states to fund healthcare. Given that the number of voters directly benefiting from government-funded healthcare far exceeds those benefiting from government-funded schools, districts should expect little financial relief from state budgets.
The same dynamics will play out at the federal level. School districts might hope that federal spending could bail them out and could point to the fact that, unlike state budgets, the feds need not balance their budgets. But the inflationary surge following the pandemic impressed upon policymakers that even the federal government has limits on what it can spend. And with healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, and a host of other issues all in line for federal bailouts ahead of education, districts should moderate their expectations for financial relief from the federal government.
With a larger and more sustained drop in enrollments coming and with less opportunity for financial rescue, the school closings and teacher layoffs are likely to be much larger than they were in the 1970s and 1980s. Education colleges will lose even more enrollment than they already have, and many will have to close their doors. Teachers may turn once again to the unions for protection. But unions cannot expand their geographic scope and will experience a drop in membership as the number of teachers declines, resulting in diminished political power.
The birth dearth will also make adopting important reforms of the education system more challenging in some ways. As we clearly saw in Arizona, expanding school choice is made more politically palatable when state governments are flush with cash and when public schools are overcrowded with growing enrollments.
When schools are filled with students, and districts are at least partially held harmless from the loss of funds as enrollment shifts to private schools, the public school establishment doesn’t fight quite as hard to block new competition from private school choice. Going forward, passing new school choice programs will become more difficult as districts become more desperate to keep every student and every dollar those students generate.
Plummeting fertility rates, however, might provide a new argument for states to adopt choice programs. With fewer people being born, many states may experience shortages of labor, especially outside of the sunbelt where populations are already fleeing. Empowering parents to have more options and control over the education of their children may give states a competitive advantage in attracting or retaining those families and their labor.
This competitive pressure to adopt choice programs is becoming stronger as a critical mass of states have already enacted universal private school choice programs in which every child in the state is eligible to direct government funds or subsidies to their preferred educational setting. Once Texas adopts universal school choice, which appears likely to occur next year, almost 40 percent of all students in the country will be eligible for private school choice.
With many red states still gaining population aboard the choice bandwagon, it will be harder for other states to resist adopting similar universal choice programs. Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wyoming may find it difficult to explain to their voters why they won’t do what Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah have already done. And once almost 20 red states have embraced universal school choice, purple and blue states will feel enormous pressure to do the same or face even larger migrations of families and labor force from their states to others that do empower families with options for educating their children.
In addition, because private choice programs cost significantly less per pupil than do traditional public schools, state policymakers will find the financial savings very attractive. It will allow them to cover those rising healthcare costs and somewhat increase the per pupil funding for students who remain in public schools.
As the economic historian William Fischel observed in his book “Making the Grade,” the ability of American families to move shaped the initial development of the country’s education system. Educational opportunities were an attractive amenity that lured families to relocate to new communities and increase that area’s tax base.
That was why the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set aside a parcel of land in each block for development as an endowment for building a local school, enticing families to move West and settle the Northwest Territory. Similarly, local communities added secondary education to their school districts to complete more effectively in luring families to move to their area.
As Fischel explains it, Tiebout choice, or the competitive market of local governments, produced the education system we now have. But existing arrangements are not set in stone and will continue to be reshaped by competition among local governments. Tiebout choice will soon lead policymakers to offer universal private school choice to attract families and their labor to their state. As birth rates plummet, the competition for that labor will grow more intense, increasing the appeal of adopting policies that empower families with educational options.
Israel Already Requesting A Second THAAD Missile Defense Battery From US
It was only within the past few days that Israeli leaders confirmed a US-supplied THAAD anti-ballistic missile system has become operational on the ground in Israel. This marked a major development which has effectively put American troops directly in harm’s way at a moment Israel is still readying to retaliate against Iran for the Oct.1st ballistic missile attack.
But just after the arrival of the first THAAD (or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), the Israeli government is already requesting that a second one be deployed from the US, according to Israel’s Channel 12 on Friday.
Times of Israel notes that “Each battery consists of six truck-mounted launchers, 48 interceptors, radio and radar equipment, and requires 95 soldiers to operate.”
Already some 100 American soldiers are on the ground manning the first THAAD, but a second battery would bring that total to around 200 US soldiers deployed in Israel. There’s as yet been no indication that the Pentagon plans to ship a second battery.
Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh on Tuesday described that “An advance team of military personnel and some of the initial components needed to operate the missile battery arrived in Israel yesterday [Monday], with additional personnel and components scheduled to arrive in the coming days with a goal of making the THAAD fully capable in the near future.”
“This decision was made as part of the broader adjustments the U.S. military has made in recent months to support the defense of Israel and protect Americans from attacks by Iran and Iranian-aligned militias,” she continued.
The White House says it has been briefed by the Netanyahu government on what targets in Iran are expected to be hit, as Israel’s retaliation remains imminent. But it seems Tel Aviv is already begging for more and more equipment and missiles from the Pentagon.
“Israel faces a looming shortage of interceptor missiles as it shores up air defenses to protect the country from attacks by Iran and its proxies, according to industry executives, former military officials and analysts,” FT wrote this week.
“The US is racing to help close gaps in Israel’s protective shield, announcing on Sunday the deployment of a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) antimissile battery, ahead of an expected retaliatory strike from Israel on Iran that risks further regional escalation.”
Israel competing with Zelensky in the “gimme gimme gimme” category. Why can’t we use the missile defense weapons that WE paid for to protect OUR country? https://t.co/aHKdL1ocdY
One analyst and former US senior defense official, Dana Stroul, was cited in the same report as saying that “Israel’s munitions issue is serious.” Stroul, a pro-Israel and anti-Iran hawk, has described that “If Iran responds to an Israel attack [with a massive air strike campaign], and Hizbollah joins in too, Israel air defenses will be stretched.”
Israel is likely to keep asking for more, and despite billions of dollars already pledged – and based on prior patterns – Washington is likely to oblige… just as it’s been doing for the constant similar requests out of Ukraine.
And falling for this particular confidence scheme won’t just cost you, it’ll cost all of us.
I’m an affluent 30-something divorced, white, childless, American woman with multiple postgraduate degrees, and a busy career. I’ve lived abroad in several metropolitan cities and I own my home. According to every single statistic, I should be a J.D. Vance-loathing single cat lady.
I should also really hate Donald Trump. But I don’t.
Lest we forget, the presidency is not a popularity contest. There seems to be some confusion on that front. You aren’t casting a ballot for Prom Queen, you’re voting for the leader of the free world. It’s why that little thing called the Electoral College exists.
I’ve heard other women say they’re voting for Vice President Kamala Harris because “she’s more iconic” than Trump. My response: what about inflation, foreign or domestic policy, war, immigration, education, human trafficking, or any other serious issue?
The truth is, if you actually voted for real pro-women policies, you’d vote for Trump.
And the Left knows this.
That’s why the Democratic Party has spent untold millions making Abortion the #1 issue for women. White women alone make up 40% of the electoral vote and 89 million American women total are registered to vote, making us the largest voting bloc in the nation. In 2020, swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania saw women vote at record rates, with Biden winning 57% of female voters.
We hold serious power. Hence why Democrats want to convince women that the unrestricted right to abortion is more important than the right to vote, freedom of speech, or any other right you can think of. Make abortion equalitarian with being female and tell them they are physically under attack by the GOP. Oh, and also by the Supreme Court. We can’t forget them. Democrats have done such a good job with this indoctrination that, in a recent viral video, young women said they would rather have the right to an abortion over the right to vote. What are they teaching girls in schools these days?
Yet even if you’re a passionately pro-choice voter, it’s silly to consider abortion as the critical issue at stake in this election. After all, Trump has already said he doesn’t favor a national abortion ban and that he would veto any such bill. According to KFF, only 14% of American women – or 7% of the American population – have had an abortion at some point in their life, 21% being Black, 19% Hispanic, and 11% White women.
In contrast, 100% of Americans – women included – have to buy food, pay medical bills, and want to know their tax dollars are going to help them in an emergency. Just ask the victims of Hurricane Helene as they were offered a measly $750 after FEMA gave billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars away to noncitizens and foreign countries under the Biden Harris Administration.
We’ve been inundated with the message that voting for an objectively unpopular and recognized failure of a Vice President because she loves abortion, possesses a female reproductive system, and is of minority ethnicity is more important than anything else that matters.
Ladies – don’t be so easily fooled.
Trump’s record speaks for itself and is deserving of closer attention by female voters. The former president approved the largest paid parental leave program in history, guaranteeing 12 weeks of paid leave. He directed more than $200 million per year to technology education grants for women and programs that encouraged STEM careers. He founded the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, the first-ever government program focused on advancing women’s “full and free participation” in the global economy. Trump also shone a spotlight on under-the-radar domestic women’s issues, establishing a task force for missing and murdered Native American women. Under the Trump administration, women’s unemployment reached the lowest level in 67 years and women received over 70% of new jobs.
Last I checked, those policies affect far more than 14% of the female population.
Even Trump recognizes this. He recently observed, “Women want to have safety. They want to have a strong military. They want to have a strong police force… They want to be in their house and they want to be safe. … I hope they like my personality… But to me, it wouldn’t be very important, the personality.”
He’s right. This is not a personality contest. It’s not about which candidate is more “iconic.” It is our duty as citizens to vote for the best policies, laws, and chances for us and our loved ones to thrive for years to come. Women voters are no exception to this rule.
So, from one would-be single cat lady to a nation of others, consider this: voting for the rich white man in this election doesn’t make you evil.
It makes you wise.
Tiffany Marie Brannon is a political strategist and the writer and host of the TMB Problems podcast.
Welcome to middle age. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? People in their 40s are still quite young, in their prime working years, and possess the blush of youth that society cherishes.
Your 40s are often a time of peaks: Your career history may be established, your family may be maturing, and you are still full of energy and vitality. However, you aren’t officially “young” anymore. The advancement into your middle ages introduces you to a time when your muscles become harder to maintain without dedicated exercise and when sedentary behavior comes at a higher price.
But don’t let this make you feel old, whippersnapper, because you aren’t. Besides, you can continue to stay strong and energetic with just a little exercise, and I’ve provided some great ones for you to get started.
The key here is maintaining muscle mass and flexibility to counteract the beginning of muscle decline and decreasing joint mobility. At this stage in life, managing stress and finding time to maintain healthy habits amid career and family responsibilities is crucial. You’ll be pleasantly surprised at how little time it can take.
I suggest establishing a workout routine with your family and friends to increase socialization and maximize exercise consistency. It may also be helpful to consult your physician to ensure that these exercises are right for you.
5 Key Exercises for Your 40s
1. Plank
The plank is an excellent, classic core strengthening exercise that can be performed nearly anywhere. It’s challenging at first, but progress comes quickly.
Step 1: Assume a prone position on the floor, lying with your chest and stomach downward. Rise onto your elbows while keeping your upper arms straight and at shoulder-width, palms on the floor, head up and facing forward, and your back straight (a straight back is critical).
Step 2: Hold this position for as long as you can, up to 1 minute.
Step 3: Try doing 3 sets for 1 minute each, taking 1 minute of rest between each set. Perform 3 rounds of plank , which counts as 3 sets.
Planks are an excellent exercise on their own but are even better paired with the other exercises.
Modification: You can make planks easier by bringing your forearms or knees to the floor.
Pushups are renowned for their ability to provide an excellent workout in a simple, controlled movement.
Step 1: Start on the floor with your feet together, palms flat on the floor, and arms fully extended. This is the classic starting position for pushups.
Step 2: Lower your body by bending your elbows until you’re almost touching the floor. Keep your back and legs straight as you lower yourself.
Step 3: Push yourself back up to the starting position. This counts as 1 repetition. Aim for 3 sets of 10 repetitions, making adjustments as needed.
Modification: To make this exercise easier, you can keep your knees on the floor and limit how far you bend your elbows and lower your body.
Weighted squats target the legs and gluteal muscles and take the standard bodyweight squat up a notch in both difficulty and benefit.
Step 1: Stand with your arms by your sides and your feet approximately body-width apart. Hold 1 to 2 pounds of weight in each hand. Canned goods work well in this role, but feel free to add weight.
Step 2: Start by slowly squatting down until your knees are bent at a 90-degree angle, then slowly return to standing. Take one to two seconds to move in both directions—don’t rush. As you squat, bring your arms from your sides straight out. This helps with balance and adds intensity. While squatting, push your hips back to prevent your knees from moving past your toes. This helps protect your knees from unnecessary strain and ensures proper alignment.
Step 3: Squatting and rising counts as 1 repetition. Try to perform 3 sets of 12 repetitions.
Modification: If squatting to 90 degrees or rising from it is too much, just do what you can at first.
