Authored by Owen Ashworth via The Mises Institute,

It’s not unfair to say that the current unrest and rioting in the UK has been accompanied by a lot of inaccurate information. As with any event, everyone should be aware that it becomes a lot easier to spread false information and have people believe it. Tensions are boiling over and emotions are running amok, and it does not take a genius to understand why you should be more wary of misinformation when emotion is in the driver’s seat.

Unfortunately, the #1 rule of government is to never let an emergency go to waste. The relationship between emergencies and the state is a symbiotic relationship. Supposed “emergencies” almost always lead to the growth of government and a creeping infringement on natural rights. Take the current events in the UK—the riots accompany a crackdown on an individual’s right to say what they wish on their property, free from punishment by the government or anyone else.

During the riots, misinformation has been used manipulatively, amid extremely volatile emotions, by people for their own ends. This has been very public, with the most prominent example being the claim that the Southport stabber was a Muslim named Ali Al-Shakati. This was entirely false, but it spread all over social media and angered the people that were looking for a reason to be violent.

The public nature of the misinformation, combined with the emergencies caused by the riots, has allowed the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, to threaten social media platforms, stating:

Let me also say to large social media companies, and those who run them, violent disorder clearly whipped up online: that is also a crime. It’s happening on your premises, and the law must be upheld everywhere.

In the spirit of an assault on our natural right to free speech, Starmer announced that his government would be re-examining existing legislation related to regulation of social media, even threatening to bring back proposed legislation that was abandoned in 2022 due to its open assault on free speech. Starmer’s government has suggested measures that would remove “legal but harmful” content. At least Cicero had a somewhat clear political philosophy before he violated all his beliefs about the universality of law. Starmer has yet to flesh out his actual political philosophy but followed Cicero down the path of violating individual rights.

In 2012, Keir Starmer was the director of public prosecutions and he was for reforming a clause of the Public Order act that made insults a criminal offense, stating:

The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult.

Many people who are ardent believers in two-tier policing may post a statement along the lines of, “Keir Starmer, you are a Muslim-sympathizer, and you just don’t care about the communities outside of the Islamic community.” Is this an insult or an incitement of hatred?

It could be both, but Starmer’s lack of thought concerning basic political philosophy and ethics means that he can feel comfortable holding both positions, completely unaware that his actions are nonsensical and entirely inconsistent.

Your right to say what you want, post what you want, express the feelings that come from the deepest reaches of your being, does not come from the state, a document, or a politician. It comes from the undeniable fact that you are your own being—you own yourself and only you can exert any action you wish over the many appendages of your body. Only you can produce the thoughts that constitute reason from your brain. No one else is able to take control of your brain and make you think a certain way. Proponents of restrictions on man’s ability to reason through the tool of speech should admit that they do not believe they own themselves since that is the logical conclusion of their position. Admit that you do not own yourself and we can discuss the immense political power that comes from that logic. You will soon realize just how dangerous this position is to yourself, those you love, and everyone else under which your position is enforced.

Free speech does have consequences, but those do not and can never involve the violation of the immutable fact that you own your body. You cannot sentence someone to any criminal offense due to what they say. They have not violated anyone else’s right to property, which includes your body, thus, it is manifestly immoral to use the heavy iron hand of the state to punish them for it.

If you disagree or dislike what another person says, then challenge that view, converse and debate to come to the truth, and spread it as far as you can. Unfortunately, many prominent political commentators and politicians feel the need to say that your natural right to your ability to reason is, in fact, not absolute, but qualified.

The political figures should consider why there are so many people with “ghastly” views. Members of the establishment ponder why their arguments are not taken seriously, and mistakenly come to the conclusion that it must be due to the volatile state of human nature—some people are just idiotic plebs to them. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. The establishment spends decades lying to the public, manipulating emotions, and lambasting them for their lying eyes. After a lot of what our lying eyes have told us becomes true years later, not even one of these figures will admit their error. Perhaps this is why so many have views they despise enough to wish them arrested.

You should listen to those you oppose so you can better understand their worldview and get a measure of how much thought they have put into their positions. In this spirit, there have been some interesting takes on free speech.

Keir Starmer’s government is suggesting removing “legal but harmful” speech. What is harmful? Hypothetically, if I state that the chancellor of the exchequer is a dull and bland orator who inspires very little confidence in anything and does not show any sign of truly understanding economics, is that harmful?

The chancellor may very well claim that her feelings have been hurt, that her reputation has been damaged, and thereby the great institution that is the treasury has been brought into disrepute, causing her ability to operate to be restricted by widely-perceived incompetence. If you have an establishment worldview, you probably believe that’s harmful. If I post it, should it be removed? The subjectivity implies inconsistent application of the law to target opinions that are uncouth. Think of the politician that you find the most duplicitous and hate the most, would you trust them with these powers? Remember, your guys won’t be in power forever.

Another take I’ve seen is this from a fairly prominent KC in the UK.

She attempts to justify the crackdown on free speech by suggesting that because the British parliament is adopting it, not the government, that this is an expression of “the will of people.” It is critical to make readers aware that this justification shows how shallow her thought process is. She has put zero thought into how this justifies the worst possible attacks on an individual’s natural rights since, per her own logic, if the parliament adopts the legislation, then that’s democracy in action and, therefore, justified. There is nothing in her own logic that theoretically would prevent parliament from adopting legislation that takes away your right to have a trial that is based on only the available evidence, then this is justified as its “the will of the people.”

She would probably oppose this, but if follows the same reasoning she uses to justify the restriction of speech.

We can add these events to the very long list of cases where governments exploit emergencies to expand their powers. Natural rights are inherent to every human being. Free speech plays a vital role to express why a society that wants to remain free should fight against forces that seek to diminish it. Those who argue that free speech is not absolute should think about this. Every dictatorship in the history of man started by suppressing speech because they knew that it helped shape their narrative and shut out opposing opinions from the mainstream. History is not binary, nations are not either fully free or totally authoritarian. Are you willing to take the risk of unleashing a power that could be dispensed by those you vehemently dislike? Man is fallible and politicians certainly aren’t altruistic, they all have their own agendas, so is there not an incentive to use this power to push their narrative? Questions to truly ponder and discuss before taking the leap.

Ukraine’s parliament on Tuesday voted to approve a bill outlawing religious organizations linked with Russia. But it has been clear from the start that “Bill 8371” is really all about banning the country’s largest Orthodox Church, which is called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), merely because it maintains communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. 

The move was somewhat expected given it follows two-and-a-half years of Zelensky frequently sending authorities to seize Orthodox churches and monasteries, particularly in the capital, in the wake of the Russian military invasion.

Members of parliament celebrated the bill’s approval: “It’s a historical decision! Parliament passed a bill banning a subsidiary of the aggressor country in Ukraine,” MP Irina Gerashchenko wrote on Telegram.

265 MPs voted to pass the bill, which far surpassed the required minimum of 226 votes. Only 29 voted against the measure called “On the Protection of the Constitutional Order in the Sphere of Activity of Religious Organizations,” while another four abstained.

It should be remembered that back in the spring of 2022, Zelensky signed a law which effectively banned all ‘pro-Russian’ political parties in Ukraine. This meant that overnight at least eleven significant opposition parties were barred from parliament or representation.

Bill 8371 will next pass the desk of President Zelensky, where he’s expected to sign it. It will pave the way for a much bigger persecution to ramp up against the UOC, after already in some cases priests and bishops have been thrown in jail.

Last October, when the draft version of the bill was first presented to parliament, the UOC announced it was taking significant legal steps to defend itself in courts:

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has announced the appointment of international lawyer Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Partners LLP to assist the international response to escalating attacks by the Government of Ukraine.

…”Protecting freedom of religion of all Ukrainians is essential to the continued support for Ukraine in both Washington and key European capitals,” said Amsterdam. “Draft Law 8371 represents a significant step backwards, a violation of Ukraine’s international legal commitments and the nation’s own constitution.”

Amsterdam continued: “Contrary to the Ukrainian government’s propaganda, the UOC is an independent church – instead we are witnessing pure political persecution and opportunism, which has nothing to do with Ukraine’s national security.”

In some recent instances, Orthodox clergy members have seen jail time or have been placed under house arrest, or else harassment by mobs of far-right Ukrainian nationalists, for merely calling for peace between the two countries. 

Banning the Orthodox Church will bring misery to millions of Ukrainians.
– However, if it will be supported by Washington and its minions to the extent it contributes to “de-russify” Ukraine. If the cultural & political purge is anti-Russian, then it is considered “pro-Ukrainian” pic.twitter.com/r4vBr8nE7a

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) August 20, 2024

Even a remote or potential ‘Russian connection’ – be it related to culture, music, language, or religion – has put ordinary Ukrainians under the suspicion of the state and the military of late. This despite that some one-third of the country has always spoken Russian as their first language, especially in the east and parts of the south. All of this has also gone hand in hand with the Zelensky government’s efforts to eliminate the Russian language altogether from public life.

Hours after Tuesday’s parliament vote, a Russian Orthodox Church spokesman stated: “This is an unlawful act that is the grossest violation of the basic principles of freedom of conscience and human rights.” 

Authored by Grzegorz Adamccyk via ReMix News,

External border controls will continue around Germany until the number of illegal migrants drops significantly, German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser stated on Monday during a meeting with Federal Police Chief Dieter Romann in Rostock.

Although numbers have started to decline, they remain higher than in previous years.

“I am not willing to accept these figures,” Faeser emphasized.

The German interior ministry is reportedly frustrated by the uneven distribution of refugees across Europe, according to Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

Faeser pointed out that only a few countries are shouldering the bulk of the migration burden.

She also confirmed that existing controls at the borders with Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Switzerland will remain in place until the implementation of the Common European Asylum System which was approved this spring.

However, this process will take several more months, with the earliest end to the checks expected in June 2025.

Despite a record influx of nearly 128,000 illegal migrants last year, this year’s numbers have dropped, with 53,000 illegal entries reported so far — a 16 percent decrease compared to the same period last year. German authorities attribute this decline in part to the reintroduced border controls.

The Federal Police report that most illegal entries occur via Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Switzerland.

The stationary checks on the borders with Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland were initially introduced on Oct. 16, following the earlier reinstatement of controls at the Austrian border.

The decision came as German authorities noticed a rising influx of refugees and increased human smuggling activities along these routes.

Read more here…

Authored by Colin Todhunter via Off-Guardian.org,

“A total demolition of the previous forms of existence is underway: how one comes into the world, biological sex, education, relationships, the family, even the diet that is about to become synthetic.”

Silvia Guerini, radical ecologist, in ‘From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Posthuman Cyborg: A Critique of Gender Ideology’ (2023)

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain.

The big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and big financial institutions, like BlackRock and Vanguard, are also involved, whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, pushing biosynthetic (fake) food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating and financing the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.[2]

The billionaire interests behind this try to portray their techno-solutionism as some kind of humanitarian endeavour: saving the planet with ‘climate-friendly solutions’, ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the world’. But what it really amounts to is repackaging and greenwashing the dispossessive strategies of imperialism.

It involves a shift towards a ‘one world agriculture’ under the control of agritech and the data giants, which is to be based on genetically engineered seeds, laboratory created products that resemble food, ‘precision’ and ‘data-driven’ agriculture and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail, being governed by monopolistic e-commerce platforms determined by artificial intelligence systems and algorithms.

Those who are pushing this agenda have a vision not only for farmers but also for humanity in general.

The elites through their military-digital-financial (Pentagon/Silicon Valley/Big Finance) complex want to use their technologies to reshape the world and redefine what it means to be human. They regard humans, their cultures and their practices, like nature itself, as a problem and deficient.

Farmers are to be displaced and replaced with drones, machines and cloud-based computing. Food is to be redefined and people are to be fed synthetic, genetically engineered products. Cultures are to be eradicated, and humanity is to be fully urbanised, subservient and disconnected from the natural world.

What it means to be human is to be radically transformed. But what has it meant to be human until now or at least prior to the (relatively recent) Industrial Revolution and associated mass urbanisation?

To answer this question, we need to discuss our connection to nature and what most of humanity was involved in prior to industrialisation — cultivating food.

Many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories, myths and rituals that helped them come to terms with some of the most fundamental issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs.

Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.

People’s lives have been tied to planting, harvesting, seeds, soil and the seasons for thousands of years.

Silvia Guerini, whose quote introduces this article, notes the importance of deep-rooted relationships and the rituals that re-affirm them. She says that through rituals a community recognises itself and its place in the world. They create the spirit of a rooted community by contributing to rooting and making a single existence endure in a time, in a territory, in a community.

Professor Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.

Humanity’s relationship with farming and food and our connections to land, nature and community has for millennia defined what it means to be human.

Take India, for example. Environmental scientist Viva Kermani says that Hinduism is the world’s largest nature-based religion that:

“…recognises and seeks the Divine in nature and acknowledges everything as sacred. It views the earth as our Mother and hence advocates that it should not be exploited. A loss of this understanding that earth is our mother, or rather a deliberate ignorance of this, has resulted in the abuse and the exploitation of the earth and its resources.”

Kermani notes that ancient scriptures instructed people that the animals and plants found in India are sacred and, therefore, all aspects of nature are to be revered. She adds that this understanding of and reverence towards the environment is common to all Indic religious and spiritual systems: Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

According to Kermani, the Vedic deities have deep symbolism and many layers of existence. One such association is with ecology. Surya is associated with the sun, the source of heat and light that nourishes everyone; Indra is associated with rain, crops, and abundance; and Agni is the deity of fire and transformation and controls all changes.

She notes that the Vrikshayurveda, an ancient Sanskrit text on the science of plants and trees, contains details about soil conservation, planting, sowing, treatment, propagating, how to deal with pests and diseases and a lot more.

Like Nicholls, Kermani provides insight into some of the profound cultural, philosophical and practical aspects of humanity’s connection to nature and food production.

This connection resonates with agrarianism, a philosophy based on cooperative labour and fellowship, which stands in stark contrast to the values and impacts of urban life, capitalism and technology that are seen as detrimental to independence and dignity. Agrarianism, too, emphasises a spiritual dimension as well as the value of rural society, small farms, widespread property ownership and political decentralisation.

The prominent proponent of agrarianism Wendell Berry says:

The revolution which began with machines and chemicals now continues with automation, computers and biotechnology.”

For Berry, agrarianism is not a sentimental longing for a time past. Colonial attitudes, domestic, foreign and now global, have resisted true agrarianism almost from the beginning — there has never been fully sustainable, stable, locally adapted, land-based economies.

However, Berry provides many examples of small (and larger) farms that have similar output as industrial agriculture with one third of the energy.

In his poem ‘A Spiritual Journey’, Berry writes the following:

And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles,
no matter how long,
but only by a spiritual journey,
a journey of one inch,
very arduous and humbling and joyful,
by which we arrive at the ground at our feet,
and learn to be at home.”

But in the cold, centralised, technocratic dystopia that is planned, humanity’s spiritual connection to the countryside, food and agrarian production are to be cast into the dustbin of history.

Silvia Guerini says:

The past becomes something to be erased in order to break the thread that binds us to a history, to a tradition, to a belonging, for the transition towards a new uprooted humanity, without past, without memory… a new humanity dehumanised in its essence, totally in the hands of the manipulators of reality and truth”.

This dehumanised humanity severed from the past is part of the wider agenda of transhumanism. For instance, we are not just seeing a push towards a world without farmers and everything that has connected us to the soil but, according to Guerini, also a world without mothers.

She argues that those behind test-tube babies and surrogate motherhood now have their sights on genetic engineering and artificial wombs, which would cut women out of the reproductive process. Guerini predicts that artificial wombs could eventually be demanded, or rather marketed, as a right for everyone, including transgender people. It is interesting that the language around pregnancy is already contested with the omission of ‘women’ from statements like ‘persons who can get pregnant’.

Of course, there has long been a blurring of lines between biotechnology, eugenics and genetic engineering. Genetically engineered crops, gene drives and gene editing are now a reality, but the ultimate goal is marrying artificial intelligence, bionanotechnology and genetic engineering to produce the one-world transhuman.

This is being pushed by powerful interests, who, according to Guerini, are using a rainbow, transgenic left and LGBTQ+ organisations to promote a new synthetic identity and claim to new rights. She says this is an attack on life, on nature, on “what is born, as opposed to artificial” and adds that all ties to the real, natural world must be severed.

It is interesting that in its report Future of Food, the UK supermarket giant Sainsburys celebrates a future where we are microchipped and tracked and neural laces have the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms that could work out exactly what food (delivered by drone) we need to support us at a particular time in our life. All sold as ‘personal optimisation’.

Moreover, it is likely, according to the report, that we will be getting key nutrients through implants. Part of these nutrients will come in the form of lab-grown food and insects.

A neural lace is an ultra-thin mesh that can be implanted in the skull, forming a collection of electrodes capable of monitoring brain function. It creates an interface between the brain and the machine.

Sainsburys does a pretty good job of trying to promote a dystopian future where AI has taken your job, but, according to the report, you have lots of time to celebrate the wonderful, warped world of ‘food culture’ created by the supermarket and your digital overlords.

Technofeudalism meets transhumanism — all for your convenience, of course.

But none of this will happen overnight. And whether the technology will deliver remains to be seen. Those who are promoting this brave new world might have overplayed their hand but will spend the following decades trying to drive their vision forward.

But arrogance is their Achilles heel.

There is still time to educate, to organise, to resist and to agitate against this hubris, not least by challenging the industrial food giants and the system that sustains them and by advocating for and creating grass-root food movements and local economies that strengthen food sovereignty.

Authored by J. Peder Zane via RealClearPolitics,

Most of us get the big things right: Don’t touch fire, wrestle alligators, or play in traffic. But beneath these necessary survival strategies, we are boundless reservoirs of delusion.

While many of our unmoored beliefs are specific to us – I seem to be the only person who thinks I have a beautiful singing voice – some are universal. Chief among these is the claim: I’m my own worst critic.

Instead, we cut ourselves slack at every turn. I have a million reasons why I fell down on the job and disappointed my pals. You see, it’s like this … But woe to the other guy who falls short. Come on, man, stop making excuses.

We instinctively make ourselves the hero of our own story, concocting tales to convert our vices into virtue. This dynamic is ever at work in each of us. On the plus side, if we don’t love ourselves, who will?

But delusion can also grip us on a mass scale – it is the great danger of ideology and fuels the madness of crowds.

We are seeing this unfold with terrible consequence as the dominant media betrays the very foundations of journalism – starting with demanding that only certain leaders answer questions – to transfigure Kamala Harris into a combination of Rosa Parks, Franklin Roosevelt, and Beyoncé.

Their partisanship is so manifold and manifest that it has created a cottage industry in conservative media, which creates terabytes of content each day exposing the false narratives and double standards advanced by Democrats and their laptop lackeys. Such debunking is necessary and important. But there’s a bit of delusion at work here, too: Despite all evidence to the contrary the critics somehow believe their fact-checking and truth-telling will pressure the propagandists into changing their ways.

It won’t. They are impervious to challenge. They are beyond shame.

How come? To figure out why they persist in this untoward conduct, daily compromising the values of skepticism, fairness, and bringing truth to power that they say they hold dear, we need to ask: What higher value do they believe they are serving? What do they tell themselves so they can see their corruption as heroic?

The answer is obvious: They sincerely believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, an American Hitler. If that’s the case, why would you give him a fair shake or hold his opponents’ feet to the fire?

I know this explanation is not revelatory; the Hitler analogy has been critiqued for years. But I’m not so sure that we have fully reckoned with how deeply a large percentage of the nation is in the grip of this delusion.

Displaying textbook symptoms of the addled, they insist that falsehoods are truths. Despite unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, they continue to maintain that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election, that he called all Mexicans rapists, praised neo-Nazi marchers at Charlottesville, advised Americans to inject bleach to combat COVID, and promised a “bloodbath” if he loses in November.

They are not lying when they make these claims – they sincerely believe they are expressing truths the rest of us just can’t see. This makes them immune to reason.

Echoing multiple conversations I’ve had with educated and engaged Democrats, a respected plastic surgeon recently told me, “If Trump wins, we will not have any more elections.”

He saw Jan. 6, 2021, as a dress rehearsal for the coming coup – never mind that Trump left office peaceably two weeks later. When I asked him how Trump might pull this off, he said the former president would declare a national emergency and GOP leaders would rally to his call for martial law, rounding up and jailing those who oppose him.

I pushed him again, to explain how all this might work. “Let’s say Trump and his Republican allies truly want to cross that Rubicon,” I said. “They couldn’t do it alone, right? They would probably need the Supreme Court, many state leaders, and the military to come on board. Do you really think the armed forces would support the overthrow of the Constitution?”

He didn’t respond. “Most important,” I said, “he would need the backing of his voters. Do you really believe that half the American people think ending elections and jailing untold numbers of people is fine and dandy?”

“Yes,” he said.

“Okey, dokey,” I said, switching the conversation to my concerns about the New York Yankees’ starting pitching.

His last comment suggested the dangerous depth of the delusion so many Democrats take for reality. They don’t just see Trump, but the other half of America as an existential threat to our Republic. Maybe they will defeat Hitler this November, but what to do with his tens of millions of brown-shirts?

Extreme times will require more extreme measures – more coercion, more censorship, more abrogation of rights in the name of liberty. They will heroically destroy our country in order to save it.  

Authored by Flora Zhao via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Many people experience chronic inflammation without even knowing it, Arch G. Mainous III, a professor at the University of Florida (UF) College of Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

A large-scale study published in Frontiers in Medicine in 2024 showed that among adults in the United States, almost 35 percent had systemic inflammation. Even among healthy individuals (with no evidence of disease), the proportion was about 15 percent.

Chronic inflammation is linked to a wide range of conditions and often “touches on some big diseases,” Dr. Frank A. Orlando, the medical director of UF Health Family Medicine–Springhill, told The Epoch Times. And its cause lies in what we eat and do every day.

When the Fire Is Allowed to Smolder

“We need inflammation,” Peter Osborne, a clinical nutritionist and chiropractic doctor, told The Epoch Times. The inflammatory response is an essential part of the immune system. When the body is infected or injured, inflammation—often likened to fire—is nature’s way of burning away pathogens and repairing damage. Once the threat is eliminated, inflammation should subside. But if the fire continues to smolder, it can become a chronic issue.

Inflammation that persists for more than three months is chronic inflammation, which triggers heart disease, cancer, diabetes, depression, sarcopenia, autoimmune disease, and neurodegenerative disorders, among others.

A review published in Nature Medicine indicated that over 50 percent of deaths can be attributed to inflammation-related diseases.

Chronic inflammation is a significant contributor to many heart diseases. For example, scientists’ understanding of atherosclerosis has evolved from viewing it as a passive accumulation of cholesterol to recognizing it as a condition driven by chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation triggers biochemical reactions that lead to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques and can cause these plaques to rupture.

A meta-analysis published in The Lancet found that levels of inflammation are linked to increased mortality risk for heart disease, stroke, and several types of cancer. Specifically, every threefold increase in the concentration of C-reactive protein—a standard marker of inflammation—was associated with a 37 percent higher risk of coronary heart disease and a 27 percent higher risk of ischemic stroke.

On the other hand, lower inflammation levels appear to be associated with increased longevity. A study involving hundreds of centenarians in Japan found that inflammation levels were more accurate predictors of longevity than telomere length and better predictors of daily living capabilities and cognitive function in older people than age. The study suggested that “suppression of chronic inflammation could be an essential step towards further improvements in human healthy lifespan.”

Short-Term Solution

Most inflammation can be controlled with medications, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (e.g., ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin), steroids, and immunomodulatory drugs. In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved colchicine as the first anti-inflammatory drug for heart disease.

But while using anti-inflammatory drugs is common in clinical practice, “there are no guidelines recommending NSAIDs for general use long-term to control chronic inflammation,” said Orlando. He added that even over-the-counter NSAIDs carry risks, such as heart attack, stroke, acute kidney injury, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and can interact with other medications.

“We do not want to put people on those [medications] for a long time,” especially when it comes to more potent anti-inflammatory drugs like corticosteroids and colchicine, said Mainous, who is also vice chair for research in the Department of Community Health and Family Medicine at UF.

Osborne, who practices functional nutrition, said that anti-inflammatory drugs can affect gut microbiome health and disrupt the production and absorption of certain nutrients. A deficiency in nutrients responsible for regulating inflammation can, in turn, exacerbate inflammation. For example, NSAIDs may lead to vitamin C deficiency, while corticosteroids can result in vitamin D, calcium, and magnesium deficiencies.

Relying solely on medication won’t lead to resolution, said Osborne.

He highlighted a phenomenon: Developed countries have some of the best health care systems in the world, but when it comes to chronic inflammation, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and other conditions, “we spend more money trying to treat these diseases, but we fail.”

David Furman, who holds a doctorate in immunology and is the director of the 1000 Immunomes Project at the Stanford University School of Medicine, said that modern lifestyle is a key problem.

While modern technology makes life more convenient and comfortable, this convenience is merely a façade, he said. “We sit for long periods, eat fast food and highly processed foods, and endure high levels of work stress, all of which can trigger and worsen inflammation,” he said.

Diet Is a Main Driver

“The biggest driver of chronic inflammation is found in our food,” Osborne said.

Food’s role is to nourish the body, providing energy and nutrients to maintain proper function. However, various food additives, such as artificial flavors, colors, emulsifiers, and added sugars, can contribute to chronic inflammation. Studies have demonstrated that common emulsifiers in processed foods, such as carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and polysorbate 80 (P80), can damage the gut and induce inflammation. Additionally, the high levels of sugar and refined carbohydrates in ultra-processed foods can lead to elevated blood sugar and oxidative stress, triggering inflammation.

A large study published in 2020 found that individuals who followed a pro-inflammatory diet had elevated levels of multiple inflammatory markers and a 38 percent increased risk of heart disease. Another study based on data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), published in 2022, found that those who consumed a high amount of pro-inflammatory foods had a 41 percent increased risk of cancer mortality.

“You do not eat the food today, and you have a heart attack because of it tomorrow,” said Osborne. The problem is “when you eat poorly day in and day out for decades of your life,” which gradually prevents the body from ceasing inflammation until its defenses break down and disease occurs.

However, Osborne said that doctors in most countries rarely emphasize nutrition. During their eight years of medical education, they receive minimal training in that area. He hopes that diet will become a fundamental component when doctors educate patients on combatting diseases.

Several experts highlighted that avoiding ultra-processed foods is more important than simply consuming foods with potential anti-inflammatory properties. Mainous pointed out that eating a single anti-inflammatory food, such as a specific fruit, may not yield the desired anti-inflammatory effects.

Another important factor contributing to diet-induced inflammation is food allergies.

“There’s an old saying: One man’s food is another man’s poison,” Osborne noted, sharing the story of a patient he helped. The 6-year-old girl, who had an inflammatory disease, was given only six months to live. Fortunately, Osborne discovered that the child was allergic to blueberries, which her mother had been giving her every morning in a blueberry smoothie. Eliminating blueberries from the girl’s diet saved her life.

Gluten and certain substances in soy and milk can also cause inflammation in some individuals, Osborne added. Through modern medical tests and examinations, people can identify their trigger foods and adjust their diets to mitigate and prevent inflammation.

Toxins Inside and Outside Our Homes

Various synthetic ingredients in everyday household items and cosmetics not only directly irritate the skin but can also enter the body, leading to inflammation.

Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), found in drinking water, cookware, and food packaging, can increase inflammatory responses.

Harmful chemicals also exist in the air we breathe, especially in a bustling metropolis. According to Furman, types of air pollutants such as PM2.5 and PM10 (particle matter with diameters of less than 2.5 micrometers or 10 micrometers, respectively) can cause inflammation in the brain and lungs. Moreover, formaldehyde in new furniture or newly constructed homes can lead to cardiovascular inflammation. Osborne recommends using an air purifier at home as a basic protective measure for people living in areas with poor air quality.

High Body Fat, Low Muscle Mass

A 2021 study found that prolonged sitting raises pro-inflammatory cytokines in older women and lowers anti-inflammatory cytokines in older men. Another study showed that individuals who sit for long periods have elevated levels of various inflammatory biomarkers in their blood.

A sedentary lifestyle leads to more fat accumulation. “Thirty percent of the interleukin-6 in our bloodstream is secreted by fat cells,” said Furman, noting that this substance contributes to inflammation.

Adults who do not exercise also experience a 3 percent to 8 percent reduction in muscle mass every decade. Several experts highlighted and emphasized the anti-inflammatory benefits of exercise and maintaining muscle during interviews.

Greater muscle mass leads to the production of more anti-inflammatory molecules, said Furman.

“You have to think about the muscle as a secretory organ,” he said. Muscles produce and release cytokines and various small proteins into the bloodstream, which systemically reduce inflammation. This secretion is even more pronounced during muscle contractions.

A study conducted in the United Kingdom that tracked over 4,000 adults with an average age of 49 over a 10-year follow-up period found that those who exercised regularly exhibited reduced levels of two inflammatory markers: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and interleukin-6. Notably, those who engaged in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise per week had the lowest levels of inflammation.

Mainous recommends aiming for 150 minutes of exercise per week, with the type of exercise tailored to individual health conditions. For young adults, moderate-to-intense exercise can temporarily increase acute inflammatory markers but helps reduce inflammation over the long term. For older adults and those with chronic conditions, it is crucial to avoid overexertion.

A Silent Inflammatory Agent

Experts also highlighted that stress, while intangible and invisible, is a major contributor to chronic inflammation.

One theory behind stress-induced inflammation is that it reduces the sensitivity of immune cells to signals that usually resolve inflammation.

Additionally, “stress causes inflammation by activating the body’s fight-or-flight response, which then triggers the release of what we refer to as pro-inflammatory chemicals and hormones,” Stephen Sideroff, an associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences and the Department of Rheumatology at the University of California–Los Angeles’ School of Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

Sideroff said that the first step in managing stress is to reframe adverse events as positive challenges. He explained that moderate and well-timed stress can be beneficial as it activates the sympathetic nervous system, preparing people to handle threats effectively.

Many people feel powerless against stress, but this mindset contributes to the problem, according to Sideroff. He recommends adopting a growth mindset toward stress: “I have to learn something new if I am going to handle the situation better.” Through this learning process, one can “figure out a better way of dealing with the stressors in one’s life,” he said.

Excessive stress introduces another problem: As we use our energy to manage stress, our metabolism ramps up to produce more energy and directs more blood to the muscles and brain. However, “we all have just a certain amount of personal energy,” Sideroff explained. As a result, the brain reallocates energy from other organs, such as the kidneys, to address immediate needs. This reduces the kidneys’ ability to filter harmful substances from the blood, which can then further trigger inflammation throughout the body. “This is at the heart of one of the ways that stress leads to aging and disease; a lot of the maintenance processes of the body get neglected,” he added.

Letting go of anger and doubt and facing situations with calmness can also reduce inflammation. Sideroff said that these emotions are similar to stress and consume a significant amount of the body’s energy.

“The less we interpret other people’s behavior, the less stress,” Sideroff said. We should be “learning and figuring out all of the ways that we stress ourselves unnecessarily.”

Additionally, it is essential to allow the body’s repair systems more time to heal.

“After a stress is over, we need to give the body the opportunity to recover, to go into the recovery and healing mode,” said Sideroff. One way to achieve this is finding “time in our day where we can say, ‘I am in a zone of safety, or on an island of safety.’” Even just 10 minutes of letting your guard down and relaxing can be beneficial—whether through meditation or relaxation exercises. This activates the parasympathetic nervous system, facilitating the body’s recovery.

A randomized controlled trial showed that even short periods of meditation can improve mental health, decrease pro-inflammatory cytokines, and increase anti-inflammatory cytokines. Experienced meditators exhibited greater resilience and tolerance to stress and stimuli, with lower levels of inflammation in their bodies.

Furman added that the detrimental effects of loneliness should not be underestimated. “People who are socially isolated, lack strong community support, or do not have the care of friends and family experience significantly higher levels of inflammation.”

He said people should choose an anti-inflammatory approach tailored to their individual needs. “It is not a one-size-fits-all,” he added. For instance, someone with a high-stress job—especially if it is their sole source of income—and an unbalanced diet might start by making dietary adjustments and incorporating regular exercise. Additionally, they should focus on strengthening relationships with family and friends to help reduce inflammation.

If one was to describe the nature of the anti-gun movement, they would probably use the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot.  Another way to look at it, though, is unwittingly inviting a vampire into your home.  Do it once and he’ll keep inviting himself back every night until you have no more blood left to drain.  Red flag laws are like an open invitation for gun grabbing vampires to enter any firearm owner’s home for almost any reason, slowly but surely confiscating weapons from every American they don’t like.

It doesn’t have to happen all at once.  It could happen over the span of years, but eventually they’ll get every gun that’s not hidden away without anyone ever committing a crime and without any due process pursued.  Donald Trump gave credence to these policies during his first term and it was one of the dumbest things he did in office.  Under Kamala Harris, however, we can be guaranteed a federal effort to enforce Red Flags.

Red Flag laws are a backdoor to gun confiscation that undercuts the 2nd Amendment by using standards similar to involuntary civil commitment.  Sometimes all it takes is a couple of random accusations that a person is dangerous and they receive a visit from authorities with a warrant to seize their firearms.  In some states authorities can hold those guns for up to five years if courts deem it necessary, all without the person ever being convicted of a crime. 

Just like civil commitment, there are a host of constitutional conflicts dealing primarily with the 14th Amendment.  The political left is usually opposed to involuntary commitment for this very reason, yet, they are highly enthusiastic about Red Flag laws.  Apparently, due process applies to some groups and not others.

A steady avalanche of lawsuits is now underway in multiple states to counter Red Flag measures and Democrats aren’t too happy about the level of opposition.  In an article co-produced by Rolling Stone and The Trace, anti-gunners argue that the lack of compromise on the part of conservatives is putting people’s lives at risk.  They attempt to support their position with a singular anecdote – An ongoing conflict between a 25-year Marine veteran named Don Willey diagnosed with a hoarding disorder and city officials in Cambridge, Maryland demanding he clean up his property. 

Rolling Stone writes:

“The right-wing echo chamber expanded, until there was consensus. Red-flag statutes violated due-process rights and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. They also lacked a historical analogue, and, according to a controversial 2022 Supreme Court decision, were therefore incompatible with the Second Amendment. 

These arguments would form the basis of Willey’s lawsuit, serving up the fresh outrage the gun-rights movement requires to sustain itself…”

The story drones on, adding little justification as to why Red Flag laws should be tolerated by the greater constitution loving public.  But, it does give insight into how such laws might be applied if they are left unopposed. 

Rolling Stone describes the battle between the veteran and city bureaucrat Susan Webb as if Willey is a bully terrorizing Webb and other officials with his presence.   He’s a Marine, a Christian, he’s bigger than them, he apparently defends the display of confederate flags, he says mean things, he refuses to let them on his property and he owns guns.  He’s also a member of the Second Amendment Foundation and a legal campaign called Capture the Flag that is opposed to the trespasses of Red Flag laws.

In other words, Willey is a Democrat bureaucrat’s worst nightmare.  Rolling Stone continues with dismay:

“The federal judge in the case recently asked Maryland’s Supreme Court to provide him with a definitive interpretation of the state’s red-flag statute, placing the lawsuit on hold. But he indicated that the plaintiff’s narrative carried weight. The court, the judge wrote, “is no doubt sympathetic to the experience Willey endured as he described it.” These were victories in their own right, a degree of validation that also preserves the status quo for Willey, whose property remains unchanged…”

Here we get a look into the mind of the common Democrat/progressive.  Note that they cling to the idea of the property and Willey’s lack of compliance.  They automatically attach his defiance of the city to the reason for gun confiscation, and this is a twisted mentality.

The debate over property rights and hoarding is beyond the scope of this discussion, but there’s nothing within the law that allows for law enforcement to disarm a person simply because they have too much trash and they’re not cooperative with the city government. 

Red Flags allow such officials to find ways to punish people for non-compliance by removing their 2A rights based on subjective accusations of danger rather than proof of a crime.  Maybe they find a relative, an ex girlfriend or a neighbor that doesn’t like the target individual and they coax those people to write up a testimony.  In the case of Willey, the city tried to use Veteran’s Affairs documents citing a previous struggle with PTSD as a reason why he should be disarmed. 

Once you have disarmament in play, now it’s no longer a legal impasse between the city and the individual.  Now they have instigated a confrontation which could end in bloodshed.  Rolling Stone claims this concern has been inflated by pro-gun groups, but this is exactly how it works in most states with Red Flag laws.  

In California, San Diego has been beta testing Red Flag confiscation for the past few years and they are avidly promoting the use of “task forces” to ensure guns are surrendered.  There are no provisions within San Diego’s Red Flag measures allowing for true due process.

In 2022, the California State Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom approved an expansion of California’s red flag law allowing eligible petitioners to include additional family members, roommates, individuals with a dating or co-parental relationship with a person who may pose a risk to themselves or others.

City officials in San Diego touted a decrease in overall gun homicide rates, but those stats conveniently end in 2020 when violent crime in CA began to spike again.  

Maybe Rolling Stone is right and Don Willey is not a nice guy (they do attempt to dig up every last piece of dirt on the man’s life while saying little about Susan Webb).  Maybe his land is covered in junk.  Maybe his yard is a fire hazard.  All of this could be true and it would be irrelevant to his gun rights. 

Democrats think very differently, though.  The core of Rolling Stone’s argument and The Trace’s argument is that Willey could be perceived by them as dangerous, and that’s enough to trample his rights.  The problem is, leftists are terrified of everything and see danger under every rock and behind every tree (or junk pile).  They are not qualified to be the arbiters of what constitutes a “dangerous person” and this is why they’re being buried in lawsuits.  

Once these arbitrary distinctions and accusations are allowed, anything goes.  A combative post or politically incorrect comment on social media could one day become a justification for a Red Flag visit. “Guilty until proven innocent” is an unacceptable dynamic in America and should not be tolerated. 

Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

“The Turk” was anchored off near the southern tip of Florida, and the small boat had divers in the water when a large fishing vessel cruised directly over the dive site.

The smaller boat’s owner, dentist Jeff Pacha, watched furiously, anxiously. He worried, knowing as little as 13 feet of water might separate his wife and daughter—the two divers searching for lobsters on the ocean floor—from the intruder’s two sharp propellers.

Despite Pacha’s diver-down flag, the incoming boater idled across the area, presumably looking for a spot to anchor within the 100-yard safety perimeter the flag commands in open water.

Pacha waved and shouted. And the other vessel eventually turned and slowly moved away.

Pacha’s wife and daughter were able to return to the surface unharmed. But the scene repeats far too often this time of year, sometimes with deadly consequences, Pacha told The Epoch Times.

The dangerous encroachment illustrates the risks of seeking what’s known as a tasty treasure during Florida’s annual lobster mini-season.

During this year’s mini-season, which ran from July 24 to 25, one diver was hospitalized after being struck by a boat. Two other boating accidents required rescues, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).

During the two days of early lobstering, the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office alone issued at least 12 citations requiring boat operators to appear in court, and they stopped more than 500 vessels for inspections.

What caused excitement to boil over was the annual early chance to find Florida’s spiny lobster.

The state’s regular season for lobster runs from midnight on Aug. 6 until a minute before midnight on March 31. The first two weekends are the busiest, Pacha said.

But for two days every summer, enthusiasts from around the country dive into what could be their best chance to seize their share of the most expensive item on the menu.

Lobsters. Right there for the taking. Straight from the ocean.

How to Catch a Feast

Divers are required to purchase a lobstering permit, a $5 add-on to a $17 saltwater fishing license.

Then they legally can seek the quarry that hides in shallow, warm, tropical waters.

The red, 10-legged crustacean with a spiky exoskeleton is prized for the meat in its tail. The Florida variety doesn’t have large, meat-filled claws, like its New England cousin.

Wild lobsters hide during the day under outcroppings of rock, wood, and other large objects. To get them out, divers swim to the ocean floor, find a likely hiding place, and poke into it a long metal stick. They try to “tickle” the “bugs”—as the creatures are called by those who hunt them—out of their holes and catch them in a net as they flee.

Down on the sandy ocean floor, Nicki Pacha, 25, and her mother Dee Pacha, 67, circled a cluster of coral and rock. They could see lobsters huddled within.

They poked their ticklers under the rock, gently jerking them in a scooping motion. The goal was to coerce the lobsters to exit the hiding place and swim past them.

They’d have to act fast to position their nets right at the mouth of the lobster’s hide-out. If everything goes according to plan, the lobster will swim right into the trap.

If a lobster is caught, a gloved diver first must flip it over to check for eggs that may be clinging to the bottom side of its tail. If there are no eggs, the diver next must use a measuring stick to check its size.

If the protesting bug passes inspection, it gets zipped up in the bag bound for the surface.

For a lobster to be a “keeper,” the carapace—the firm shell covering the head and legs—must be at least three inches long. Any lobster that’s smaller or is carrying eggs must be released.

Captain Tony Young, owner-operator of Forever Young Charters in Islamorada, compared the two days of early lobstering to the opening day of any hunting season. The opening days offer lobsters aplenty, he told The Epoch Times.

“It’s the best time of the year to catch lobster in the state of Florida.”

Boat or No Boat, the Hunt Is On

A boat isn’t even a requirement.

Along U.S. Highway 1, boatless lobster hunters park their cars along the side of the road and wade into shallow water.

They climb out of their vehicles, donning an array of wetsuits, rashguards, and bathing suits. They awkwardly carry nets, fins, and dive flags under their arms. They step out cautiously on the rocky coastline and plunge into the water.

Later, the waterlogged variants waddle back to their vehicles, many with bags brimming with lobsters.

Aaron and Jenny Prost stood on the shoreline at the southern end of Marathon, a city on a narrow stretch of land in the middle of the Florida Keys, watching their boys hunt in the shallow waters on the second day of mini-season.

The couple from Venice, Florida, has gone on diving adventures together for years. This was the first time their two sons joined in on the fun, hoping to bag a few keepers.

Suddenly, their oldest, Samuel,14, popped up next to his diver-down flag about 50 yards from the shoreline.

“I got one!” he shouted.

But he wasn’t sure his catch was big enough to keep.

His father shouted back instructions on how to take a proper measurement, telling him to keep the lobster in the water until they knew for sure, according to state regulations. Lobsters, like fish, have to remain underwater to breathe.

Making sure to gently hold his catch below the water’s surface, the teen shuffled toward the shore for help. After a few moments, his father announced bad news: the lobster was millimeters too short.

Samuel groaned and slumped, then trudged back out from the shore to put the lobster back where he’d found it.

He’d faced a harsh reality of lobstering: It’s not as easy as advertised.

Lobsters are fast and tricky, and divers require a certain set of skills to catch them.

All the energy spent swimming in open water, all the time spent holding one’s breath, and all the effort spent struggling to stay down, stay level, tickle, and grab a lobster can leave a diver empty-handed.

Keeping It Legal

Jeremiah Wann and his family from Mercer, Pennsylvania, rounded up about 10 lobsters during mini-season by snorkeling right off the pier of their vacation home on the ocean side of Tavernier, Florida.

The Wann boys—Holden, 16, and Lennon, 14—already knew the struggle of finding lobsters large enough to keep.

After four years of working on their lobstering skills, they’ve steadily improved, they told The Epoch Times. But they know the disappointment of catching lobsters too small to keep.

Plenty of others were caught ignoring the rules this mini-season. And that can bring serious consequences.

“The possible penalty for possession of each undersized lobster is up to 60 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both,” according to the Monroe County State Attorney’s Office.

Of the dozen citations issued over the two days by the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, most were for possession of too-small lobsters.

Lobster hunters face the same maximum penalty for taking a lobster with eggs, using a spear to catch one, or taking more than the law allows. Each violation may be charged separately.

State regulations allow divers to harvest six lobsters per day and 12 for the entire mini-season. A larger limit can be earned by helping the FWC eliminate an unwanted species from Florida waters.

Pacha and his family have taken that bait.

They participate in the FWC’s annual lionfish challenge, which offers prizes for divers helping to remove the venomous, invasive fish from reefs.

One of the prizes is a coin worth the right to take two extra lobsters during the mini-season. It’s earned by catching at least 25 lionfish or a combined total weighing at least 50 pounds.

By the end of the day, the Pachas had filled their boat’s cooler with 16 angry, snapping lobsters. They toasted their success with cold beer and later reflected on their close call.

While underwater, Nicki Pacha, 25, heard the idling of a boat above her, engines revving and clicking in and out of gear. She and her mother exchanged glances.

The 25-year-old medical student has been exploring underwater for about 20 years, both as a free diver and later as a scuba diver. Her parents have been diving together for 35 years.

Was it their family’s emergency signal? Three revs of their boat’s engine would be a call to surface.

Read more here…

Authored by Terrence Keeley & Jim Sorenson via RealClearPolitics,

The election of J.D. Vance to the vice presidency could usher in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for dramatic advancements in the lives of America’s most down-trodden, forgotten, and trapped: Such is his promise “to never forget where he came from.” With the right policies, programs, and commitments, his compelling personal story of triumph over a broken home, the ravages of drug addiction, poverty, and cultural isolation could be replicated among millions.

One of the opportunities for transformative progress in a Trump-Vance administration lies in the fields of economic mobility and wealth creation. Coupled with new approaches to substance abuse and education – topics covered in the first two essays in this three-part series – President Trump and Vice President Vance could help reverse decades of growing wealth inequality between America’s most privileged and least fortunate. Market-oriented changes in three specific areas – homeownership, retirement savings, and employee stock ownership plans – would help end decades of growing inequality not by redistributing existing wealth but by giving historically excluded Americans proven tools for improving their financial well-being all on their own.

Wealth disparity in the United States is now roughly equivalent to Russia’s – a damning comparison – and much higher than averages in most industrialized nations. Extreme wealth disparity strains social cohesion and undermines public faith in institutions by breeding perceptions of unfairness.

Americans are also growing more unequal in wealth. In 1963, the wealthiest American families had 36 times the wealth of families in the middle distribution; by 2022, this disparity had doubled to 71 times as much.

U.S. wealth inequality has overwhelming racial correlations. According to research by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, African American families today have 23 cents for every dollar of white family wealth, and Hispanic families have only 19 cents. These gaps have also grown larger over time.

In our country, homeownership is the primary way citizens build wealth. In 2018, the black-white homeownership gap reached its highest level in 50 years. Today, black Americans remain the only racial group with a homeownership rate below 50%. If we want to narrow the wealth inequality gap between races, black and Hispanic homeownership must increase.

Improving home affordability, access to credit, helping people remain in their homes, and changing cultural mindsets are all needed for growing disparities in American homeownership to change. Reforming local land-use and zoning policies, deploying more public-private partnership resources to expand the supply of affordable for-sale housing, increasing down-payment assistance, and educating the broader public on ownership-vs-renting benefits are all part of the solution.

Homeownership could also be dramatically increased by unlocking appreciating home equity for first-time home buyers, enabling them to come up with a down payment and lower mortgage debt. Capital for these shared appreciation loans could come from institutional investors on a pro-rata basis. Home equity is America’s second-largest asset class at $31 trillion, but it largely sits untapped. As an asset class, home equity generates attractive, diversified, low-risk, positive inflation-adjusted returns. Policy initiatives and regulatory changes designed to unlock this appreciating asset class to the direct benefit of first-time and existing homeowners present a scalable solution for millions of people who have been left out of the housing market.

Expanding home ownership in lower-income, racially segregated communities would have significant ancillary benefits beyond wealth generation. Children of home-owning parents have greater educational attainment and income mobility than children of renters. This difference is especially stark among low-income families. Homeownership feeds directly into improved health, educational, and career outcomes, all vital components of family well-being.

Americans have consistently built wealth in two other ways beyond homeownership: First, by staying invested in the stock market over long periods of time; and second, by sharing in the wealth creation process of individual businesses. Basic market-friendly changes in retirement savings programs and more support for employee stock ownership plans would present two additional policy priorities for a Trump-Vance administration.

Today, 70 million hard-working Americans aren’t offered any retirement benefits through their place of employment. Among the bottom 50% of America’s wealth holders, the median retirement savings account balance is $0. For the most part, tax policies regarding retirement savings hinge on granting tax benefits through deductions, as opposed to credits or direct matches. This deduction approach is regressive because those with the highest incomes and the highest marginal tax rate gain the most.

The simplest and most tax-efficient way to help lower-income Americans save for their retirement is to give them the exact same benefit provided to every U.S. federal employee: access to the wealth-building vehicle known as the Thrift Savings Plan. The federal Thrift Savings Plan has a multi-decade history with 6.5 million federal employees who voluntarily set aside portions of their pay to invest in a range of target date and multi-asset funds.

Such funds ensure that beneficiaries have high equity exposures when they are young and higher bond exposures as they age, ensuring greater predictability in retirement income. The plan’s common stock index fund has returned 10.83% per year since its inception 35 years ago, meaning its holders have, on average, doubled their retirement savings every 6½ years. The Retirement Savings for Americans Act – bipartisan legislation that uses the same model as the Thrift Savings Plan – would similarly provide a path to more secure retirement for tens of millions of hardworking Americans. A supplemental retirement market reform sponsored by a Trump-Vance administration could augment retirement savings among lower-income groups by partially funding such accounts at birth, something the state of Connecticut has started to do with its CT Baby Bonds program. 

Some 32 million American workers are employed by 2.9 million privately held firms owned by individuals at or near retirement age. A final, market-friendly policy the Trump-Vance administration could embrace involves creating employee stock ownership plans (ESOP). Here, bipartisan legislation has already been proposed in the Senate. The Employee Equity Investment Act would create a public-private partnership vehicle that facilitates the sale of privately-held companies to their employees – allowing them to maintain their jobs and build more wealth for themselves in the future. According to Jack Moriarty of the Lafayette Square Institute, such a program would build “a more competitive, resilient and broadly prosperous American economy.” ESOP participants have more than twice the average retirement balances of other Americans, proof of their effectiveness in building and retaining personal wealth over decades.

Transformational policy changes require vision, strong White House leadership, and a proven willingness to work across political lines. In areas as diverse as homeownership, retirement savings, and employee stock ownership, the time is ripe for generational reform. By providing heightened focus to proven methods for enhancing economic mobility and wealth creation – along with substance abuse and education – J.D. Vance, working side-by-side with Donald Trump, could improve the lives of millions of Americans. Such would be the promise of “remembering where he came from.” And such would be the promise of reinvigorating and restoring the American Dream.

Part one: Addressing Substance Abuse

Part two: Bolstering Education

Terrence R. Keeley is author of “Sustainable” and “Ending ESG.”

Jim Sorenson is the chairman of the Sorenson Impact Foundation.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday summoned a senior US Embassy official in Moscow in order to protest several issues related to US interference in the Kursk region, which has been scene of heavy fighting since Ukraine’s cross-border incursion kicked off on Aug.6.

Russia condemned “provocative actions” of both American journalists and US mercenaries spotted on Russian territory in the context of the Kursk invasion.

The foreign ministry in the meeting with US Embassy Chief of Mission Stephanie Holmes issued “strong protest” in “connection to the provocative actions of American reporters who illegally entered the Kursk region to produce propaganda for covering up the crimes of the Kyiv regime.”

The statement further said that national law enforcement authorities plan to “carry out the necessary investigative measures” examining the American journalists’ work.

Last week a CNN crew filed a report from the heart of the Russian town Sudzha just after the Ukrainian army took it over. It was clear that the CNN journalists were there under the protection of the Ukrainian military, as their words describing a segment indicated:

Chief International Security Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh gained some of the first access to a Ukrainian-held Russian town Friday, to witness their control over the town of Sudzha and the intensity of the fight. CNN was accompanied by the Ukrainian military who reviewed the video without sound prior to release for operational security reasons, yet had no editorial control.

Watch: Some of CNN’s footage inside the southern Russian town…

Chief International Security Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh gained some of the first access to a Ukrainian-held Russian town Friday, to witness their control over the town of Sudzha and the intensity of the fight. CNN was accompanied by the Ukrainian military who reviewed the… pic.twitter.com/Q9ueTEH5tR

— Beautiful Flower 🌺 (@LexieBeautiful_) August 18, 2024

Moscow views his as unauthorized American journalists illegally entering Russia’s sovereign territory without permission, ultimately to assist with Ukrainian propaganda under Kiev’s military protection.

But among the more interesting charges aimed at Holmes from the Russian Foreign Ministry centers on the alleged presence of US military contractors assisting the Kursk invasion. 

The ministry pointed to “evidence that has emerged of the participation of American private military companies on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces during” the offensive into Russia.

While not naming specific companies or firms, Russian state sources have flagged a posting by the American military lifestyle brand Forward Observations Group.

EXPOSED: US mercs spotted in Kursk region

US mercenary firm Forward Observations Group (FOG), previously known for its presence in Ukraine and Israel, claims its members are taking part in the Ukrainian attack of the Kursk region, Sputnik has discovered.

FOG’s official… pic.twitter.com/kED85qUczh

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) August 20, 2024

The organization recently posted photos of alleged US mercenaries on Instagram, apparently on the Kursk battlefield, with a caption that reads: “the boys in Kursk.”