BurgerFi’s financial situation is only getting worse.

It expects to report net losses of $18.4 million for the quarter ending July 1 compared to a $6 million loss during the same period in 2023. The increase was driven primarily due to lower operating income, higher general and administrative expenses and larger restructuring costs.

The company had $4.4 million in cash and cash equivalents as of Aug. 14.

As Julie Littman reports for RestaurantDive, the chain also expects to report restaurant sales declines of $1.8 million, or 4% year-over-year, last quarter.

This was driven largely by same-store sales declines at BurgerFi and sister brand Anthony’s Coal Fired Pizza and Wings.

The company said it closed underperforming BurgerFi- corporate locations, but the filing didn’t say how many locations were shuttered.

If the company’s senior lender declares that debt is due and payable immediately, the company would be unable to repay, and “the lender could foreclose on its security interest and liquidate or take possession of some or all of the assets of the company and its subsidiaries,” according to the filing.

This would require the company to curtail or cease operations.

“There is no assurance that the Company will be able to restructure its obligations, obtain additional financing, and/or sell assets on terms and conditions that will permit the Company to meet its current obligations,” BurgerFi added.

The chain secured an emergency protective advanced agreement with its lenders of $2.5 million earlier this month, but that is nowhere near enough to sustain operations with growing losses.

BurgerFi, which went public in 2020 following a merger with a SPAC, has struggled during the last few years as its net losses have persisted. In 2022, net losses topped $100 million, before improving to $30 million last year.  

In 2023, the chain hired Carl Bachmann as CEO and Christopher Jones as CFO to help turn around the business.

By Ezra Reguerra of CoinTelegraph

In a significant update to the United Arab Emirates’ judiciary approach to crypto, the Dubai Court of First Instance recognizes salary payments in crypto as valid under employment contracts. 

Irina Heaver, a partner at UAE law firm NeosLegal, explained that the ruling in case number 1739 of 2024 shows a shift from the court’s earlier stance in 2023, where a similar claim was denied because the crypto involved lacked precise valuation. 

Heaver believes this shows a “progressive approach” to integrating digital currencies into the country’s legal and economic framework.

Dubai court recognizes inclusion of tokens in salary

Heaver said that the case involved an employee who filed a lawsuit claiming that the employer had not paid their wages, wrongful termination compensation and other benefits. 

The worker’s employment contract stipulated a monthly salary in fiat and 5,250 in EcoWatt tokens. The dispute stems from the employer’s inability to pay the tokens portion of the employee’s salary in six months. 

In 2023, the court acknowledged the inclusion of the EcoWatts tokens in the contract. Still, it did not enforce the payment in crypto, as the employee failed to provide a clear method for valuing the currency in fiat terms. 

“This decision reflected a traditional viewpoint, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence when dealing with unconventional payment forms,” Heaver said. 

However, the lawyer said that in 2024, the court “took a step forward,” ruling in favor of the employee and ordering the payment of the crypto salary as per the employment contract without converting it into fiat. Heaver said: 

“This decision reflects a broader acceptance of cryptocurrency in employment contracts and highlights the court’s recognition of the evolving nature of financial transactions within the Web3 economy.”

Heaver added that the court’s reliance on the UAE Civil Transactions Law and Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 in both judgments shows the consistent application of legal principles in wage determination. 

Far-reaching implications for UAE crypto adoption

According to Heaver, the decision also sets a positive precedent that encourages the further integration of digital currencies in everyday financial transactions. The lawyer believes that this fosters a more inclusive and innovative business environment. Heaver said: 

“This ruling affirms that if an employment contract includes such terms, both the company and the employee must honor them. It is reassuring to see the court recognize that wages, whether paid in fiat or cryptocurrency, are the rightful entitlement of the employee for their agreed-upon work.”

Heaver added that it’s a win for employees and a significant step forward in the UAE’s journey toward becoming a digital economy leader. 

Many people around the world dream of living in the United States, seeking better opportunities or fleeing conflict and poverty. The U.S. is home to more immigrants than any other nation, surpassing the combined totals of Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu, ranks the top 15 countries of origin for people who gained permanent residency in the U.S. in 2022.

The data was sourced from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics. In total, 1,018,340 people received green cards in 2022.

Mexico and India Top the List

Mexico remains the most significant contributor to U.S. immigration, with 10.7 million immigrants. Consequently, it leads in the number of green cards, with 139,000 issued in 2022. Many Mexicans come to the U.S. seeking economic opportunities, better living standards, and family reunification.

India ranks second, with 127,000 immigrants receiving green cards. Indian immigration has surged due to the country’s large pool of skilled professionals, particularly in the tech and healthcare sectors, seeking better job prospects and higher education opportunities in the U.S.

Indian Immigration Rises

In 2020, the number of new permanent residents from India fell to a 10-year low of 46,363, possibly due to stricter COVID-19 travel restrictions. However, immigration has increased since then, climbing to 93,450 in 2021 and 127,012 in 2022.

Together, immigrants from Mexico and India accounted for 265,784 green cards, making up 26% of the total issued in 2022.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Eighty years ago, the U.S. government launched a war bond campaign featuring a painting by artist Norman Rockwell in the struggle against the authoritarian threat from Europe. The picture they chose was Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech depicting a man rising to speak his mind at a local council meeting in Vermont. The image rallied the nation around what Louis Brandeis called our “indispensable right.”

Now, that very right is again under attack from another European government, which is claiming the right to censor what Americans are allowed to say about politics, science and other subjects.

Indeed, the threat from the European Union may succeed in curtailing American freedom to an extent that the Axis powers could not have imagined. They may win, and our leaders have not said a thing yet about it.

In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the inspiration for Rockwell’s painting: a young selectman in Vermont named James “Buddy” Edgerton. The descendent of a Revolutionary War hero, Edgerton stood up as the lone dissenter to a plan to build a new schoolhouse over the lack of funding for such construction.

For Rockwell, the scene was a riveting example of how one man in this country can stand alone and be heard despite overwhelming opposition to his views. It was, for Rockwell (and for many of us), the quintessential American moment.

In the 1940s, people like Edgerton had to travel to small board meetings or public spaces to speak their mind.

Today, the vast majority of political speech occurs over the Internet and specifically social media.

That is why the internet is the single greatest advancement for free speech since the printing press.

It is also the reason governments have spent decades seeking to control speech over the internet, to regulate what people can say or read.

One of the greatest threats to free speech today is the European Digital Services Act. The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

In Europe, free speech is in free fall. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and other countries have eviscerated free speech by criminalizing speech deemed inciteful or degrading to individuals or groups. The result had made little difference to the neo-Nazi movement in countries like Germany, which is reaching record numbers. It has, however, silenced the rest of society.

According to polling, only 18 percent of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public.

Fifty-nine percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. Only 17 percent feel free to express themselves on the internet.

They have silenced the wrong people, but there is now a massive censorship bureaucracy in Europe and the desire to silence opposing voices has become insatiable.

Some in this country have the same taste for speech-regulation. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans.

The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin.

It was a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The anti-free speech movement had finally found the one man who could not be bullied, coerced or threatened into submission.

Musk’s defiance has only magnified the unrelenting attacks against him in the media, academia and government. If Musk can be broken, these figures will once again exercise effective control over a large swath of speech globally.

This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the most notorious anti-free speech figures in the world went ballistic.

European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.”

While offering a passing nod to the freedom of speech, he warned Musk that “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events.” In other words, be afraid, be very afraid.

Musk responded with “Bonjour!” and then suggested that Breton perform a physically challenging sexual act.

To recap, the EU is now moving to force censorship upon American citizens to meet its own demands of what is false, demeaning or inciting. And that includes censorship even of our leading political candidates for the presidency.

The response from the Biden administration was not a presidential statement warning any foreign government from seeking to limit our rights or even Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling the EU ambassador to his office for an expression of displeasure.

That’s because Biden and Harris are not displeased with but supportive of letting the EU do what they are barred from doing under our Constitution. This administration is arguably the most anti-free speech government since John Adams signed the Sedition Act. They have supported a massive system of censorship, blacklisting and targeting of opposing voices. Democratic members have given full-throated support for censorship, including pushing social media companies to expand in areas ranging from climate control to gender identity.

So, after only 80 years, our leaders are silent as a European government threatens to reduce our political speech to the lowest common denominator, which they will set according to their own values. Not a shot will be fired as Biden and Harris simply yield our rights to a global governing system.

But we do not have to go quietly into this night. Free speech remains a human right that is part of our DNA as Americans. We can fight back and protect millions of Edgertons who want to express their views regardless of the judgment of the majority.

I previously called for legislation to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business domestically. We also need new legislation to keep other countries from regulating the speech of our own citizens and companies. While this country has long threatened retaliation in combatting market barriers in other countries, we need to do the same thing for free speech. We need a federal law that opposes the intrusion of the Digital Services Act into the U.S.

If free speech is truly the “indispensable right” of all Americans, we need to treat this threat as an attack on our very existence. It is not only the rawest form of foreign intervention into an election, but a foreign attack on our very freedoms. This is why we must pass a Digital Freedom Act.

*  * *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Metrics assessing women’s safety, inclusion, and access to justice vary greatly by country and region.

In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Julia Wendling ranked the top 10 nations for women, using the 2023 Women Peace and Security Index scores from the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.

Countries are given an index score out of 1.0 that is derived based on the following components:

• Inclusion: education, employment, financial inclusion, cell phone use, parliamentary representation

• Justice: absence of legal discrimination, access to justice, maternal mortality ratio, son bias

• Safety: intimate partner violence, community safety, political violence targeting women, and proximity to conflict

Which Are the Best Countries for Women? 

All of the top 10 countries for women received index scores above 0.9, significantly higher than the global average of 0.65. Nine of them are located in Europe, with New Zealand (#10) representing the only regional outlier.

The highest-ranked country was Denmark, which scored particularly well across inclusion (such as financial inclusion and parliamentary representation) and justice (such as absence of legal discrimination and access to justice) metrics. Its Scandinavian peers—Sweden (#3) and Norway (#7)—followed closely behind.

Overall, the group of best countries for women feature low maternal mortality, high education rates, and a lack of political violence against women and proximity to conflict.

Other Takeaways 

Canada (#17), the UK (#26), and the U.S. (#37) all rank relatively high but didn’t make the top 10 list. Lower rankings for parliamentary representation, maternal mortality, and community safety dragged the score for the U.S. down to lower than European counterparts.

If you found this interesting, check out this visualization that looks at the countries with the most gender-equal pay among OECD countries.

By Tor Vollalokken. The blog appeared earlier this month as an op-ed in Dagens Næringsliv. Tor Vollalokken enjoyed more than fifteen years as an Investment Banker and thirty years as an independent analyst and advisor to sovereigns, hedge funds, fund managers, family offices, and energy companies worldwide, focusing on Scandinavian currencies.

NOK’s structural challenge

The weakening of the krona in recent years is, for me, explained through two structural factors:

1. A large capital outflow in kroner is caused by an import surplus in the goods trade balance (the petroleum sector is left out, since it is essentially a currency balance).

This negative krone balance has been there for a long time, though has accelerated somewhat in recent years. Both the Ministry of Finance and Norges Bank are, of course, aware of this negative balance, but they probably see the funding of the budget deficit – which is a krone inflow – as matching this krone capital outflow – and to a large extent it has.

2. The relatively new problem lies in the securities balance, where over the past four years Norwegians have invested significantly more in foreign equities and bonds than foreigners have in Norway.

This has resulted in a large krone capital flight out of Norway, so much that it explains the broader part of the krone’s weakening.

Some of the investments Norwegians do abroad are currency hedged, and this reduces the krone output somewhat.

The reasons foreigners do not invest more than they do and, why Norwegians invest as much abroad as they do, are certainly several.

I am not a politician, and therefore I do not have any opinions about it. I am only making a few assumptions about whether changes in taxes, regulatory conditions and ambitions can be expected, that will either strengthen or weaken the krone. As I see it today, such changes are few and probably for some time into the future. I therefore assume that the structural capital outflow in kroner in the next few years will continue at approximately the same level as what has been seen since 2020, and it will therefore be a source of further krone weakening.

Policy tools

Norges Bank only has the policy rate as tools to achieve its inflation target, and has also shown no desire to use other tools.

It is critical for the inflation target that the krone does not weaken further. The krone will probably have to regain some ground from its current level, for Norges Bank’s inflation projection in September not to be adjusted upwards.

This summer I expressed in “Dagens Næringsliv” that Norges Bank is “cornered.” By that I mean that it will be the krone exchange rate that determines the future interest rate level in Norway. I think this is unfortunate. The interest rate should be set based on the inflation target and desired developments for business and households, including achieving high employment.

The krone’s structural problem can be fixed.

This can happen through political decisions that stimulate increased investment in Norway from abroad or reduce Norwegians’ appetite for foreign investment. Again: It’s not my table.

Alternatively, speculative investors can buy the kroner as a counterweight to the kroner capital outflow. I would have great reservations in my clients becoming a solution to the krone’s speculative problem. They are big enough in total for a short-term solution, but with a strong profit motive, they will only buy krone when a number of parameters are in place, and the krone interest rate is only one of them.

Fed to the rescue?

The most important incentive is actually the outlook for the dollar and the dollar interest rate – which is completely outside Norges Bank’s control. Should my clients first buy the krone, and then choose not to sell the krone again after an appreciation in the exchange rate, they would want to be paid well. That means an interest rate differential to currencies of trading partners, which we are quite far away from today.

I think it is sad that Norges Bank makes itself dependent on speculative investors. The krone’s structural problem should not be solved by them.

Norges Bank needs instead extended use of measures to prevent an undesirably high level for interest rates. I have therefore proposed that a small part of the Oil Fund to be currency hedged, in order to neutralize the krone capital outflow. Its purpose is to ensure far less volatility in the krone exchange rate and an exchange rate level that does not threaten the inflation target or financial calculability for businesses and households.

The oil fund is a resource that no other country has. It is more than 20 times Norges Bank’s currency reserves. Lack of success for currency interventions on previous occasions or for other countries is therefore, in my opinion, not very relevant.

Not expanding the use of instruments means while not setting interest rates at uncomfortably high levels means Norges Bank relying on other central banks cutting interest rates – and a lot.

In practice that is monetary policy largely based on luck.

A massive, early-stage lithium mining project in Serbia faces huge and animated public opposition, casting some doubt on the viability of a key component of Western Europe’s push for a “green transition” away from fossil fuels. Opposition to the Rio Tinto Group project is powered by a hybrid engine fueled by environmentalism and nationalism. 

The size and intensity of the opposition was on full display earlier this month, as an estimated 24,000 to 27,000 marching protesters filled wide boulevards in Belgrade, chanting “Rio Tinto get out of Serbia” and “you will not dig,” and carrying signs saying “We do not give Serbia away.” Others disrupted train travel by filling two of the city’s stations, with some blocking the tracks. 

Over the past few years, the mine project has been a stop-and-go affair. After Rio Tinto’s license was given the green light in 2019, it was revoked in 2022 amid the final run-up to Serbia’s general election — following months of enormous protests like the one seen a few weeks ago. Then-Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said the decision was made in deference to the protesters, and declared, “We put an end to Riot Tinto in Serbia.” 

This July, however, a court ruled the revocation was unconstitutional, and the license was restored shortly after. Pressure from the European Union likely figured in the change of course — Serbia wants to join the EU. 

If it proceeds to production, Rio Tinto’s $2.55 billion Jadar Valley mine in the western part of the country would be the largest lithium mine in Europe, with the potential to fill 90% of Europe’s current lithium demand. It would also assure Rio Tinto a spot among the global leaders of the mineral that’s a critical ingredient of lithium-ion batteries.

Farmers and activists in Serbia have sparked nationwide protests to stop the building of Rio Tinto’s first European lithium mine, warning it would pollute their land and endanger public health https://t.co/QXyP6MuH0l pic.twitter.com/6LCy2skmSP

— Reuters Business (@ReutersBiz) August 9, 2024

“There is no green transition in Europe without this lithium,” Rio Tinto’s top dog in Serbia, Chad Blewitt, told the New York Times. His company has spent more than a half-billion on land acquisitions and exploration already, and it could be another two years until production is underway. Rio Tinto (RIO) shares closed Friday at $61.28, and have traded between $59 and $75 over the past 52 weeks. 

Opposition groups want a permanent, countrywide ban on lithium and boron mining. “We are not going to give up. The mine cannot be built on agricultural land,” 63-year-old protester Mica Miliovanovic told Reuters. “This does not have anything to do with politics.” Separately, 25-year-old Angela Rojovic told the Times, “I don’t need green cars. I need green apples and green grass.”

In a promotional video that aims to reassure Serbians of the mine’s economic benefits and minimal environmental impact, Rio Tinto says “the critical minerals are found below the surface, separated from water sources. Around 200 kilometers of tunnels will link underground mining operations…while farming continues above the mine.” 

Nonetheless, some Serbians say their land is being exploited and their health jeopardized to advance the aims of people outside the country. “[We] fear Serbia will be sacrificed to provide lithium for electric vehicles that pretty much nobody in Serbia can afford,” Green-Left Movement co-director Biljana Djordjevic told the BBC. 

There’s also a geopolitical element: For some, the mine is a litmus test separating those who want to align the country with the United States and Western Europe against those who want to maintain a relationship with Russia. When the latest round of protests erupted, officials claimed the real objective was toppling the government of President Aleksandar Vucic — who himself said intelligence from the Russian Federation indicated a coup was in the works.

In addition to environmentalists, members of the ultranationalist, Russia-friendly People’s Patrol have also joined in the anti-mine protests.  When Vucic decided to back the mine in July at the urging of the EU, it was seen as an indication of his intent to disengage from Russia.   

German officials have been pushing the project hard, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Mercedes Benz executives visiting Belgrade last month. However, the German element ruffles some feathers in Serbia. Dragan Karajcic, a politician leading villages in the vicinity of the mine, told the Times he was seething when the Germans assured Serbians the mine would be safe. He pointed to Nazi atrocities that took place in nearby Draginac in 1941, with thousands of civilian executions following similar assurances of the locals’ safety.

Nebojsa Petkovic, a villager who traveled to Belgrade to lead the August 10 protests, told the Times, “Let the Germans save the planet. We need to save ourselves.”

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko warned on Sunday in an interview with leading Russian media that:

“Such escalation on the part of Ukraine (by invading Kursk) is an attempt to push Russia to asymmetric actions.

Well, let’s say to use nuclear weapons. I know for sure that Ukraine would be very happy if Russia or we used tactical nuclear weapons there.

They will applaud it. Then, probably, we would hardly have allies left. In general, there would be no even sympathetic countries left.”

That sounds absurd on the surface, but it actually makes a lot of sense if one thinks more deeply about it.

The use of nuclear weapons is taboo because of the physical and environmental damage that they cause.

There are also credible fears that they’d lead to one’s nuclear-armed adversaries retaliating in a tit-for-tat fashion, thus rapidly climbing the escalation ladder to the brink of World War III. Nevertheless, several states still retain nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes in line with their respective doctrines.

As regards Russia’s, they can be employed in the event of a large-scale conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state, among other conditions. That hasn’t yet happened in the Kursk context, but the hypothetical scenario of that region or another being completely captured by Ukraine might be deemed by some decisionmakers as meeting the criterion depending on how rapidly the front lines collapse. To be clear, there’s no credible indication that anything of the sort will unfold.

Nevertheless, Ukraine might capitalize upon its attack there by striking the nearby nuclear power plant. A top Russian military journalist had earlier warned that “[Ukraine] plan[s] to strike the storage sites of spent nuclear fuel of a nuclear power plant” in either Kursk or Zaporozhye. This then prompted the Russian Defense Ministry to officially declare that “tough military and military-technical countermeasures will be taken immediately” in that event.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that such strikes against those targets “could result in a large-scale technogenic catastrophe in Europe”, not to mention in the Russian heartland if the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant melts down in the aftermath. These combined conventional (invasion) and unconventional (de facto dirty bomb) attacks could push Russian decisionmakers closer to seriously considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons in response as a last resort out of self-defense.

Whether dropped inside of Russia’s own borders or Ukraine’s, they’d send a political shockwave across the world due to breaking the previously mentioned taboo, which could indeed lead to there being “no even sympathetic countries left” in support of Russia barring a few like North Korea.

China and India would be under immense pressure to distance themselves from Russia, not just by the West, but also for appearance’s sake since they wouldn’t want to legitimize the use of nuclear weapons by their rivals.

Reports have also swirled that the US might conventionally retaliate against Russian forces inside of Ukrainian-claimed territory if nuclear weapons are used there, thus placing their proxy war on a direct path to World War III if that happens. Ukraine is still losing to Russia despite its sneak attack in Kursk so its leadership might have calculated, however “irrationally” it seems to objective observers, to provoke Russia into raising the stakes to that level.

It’s this escalation sequence that Lukashenko likely had in mind when warning that Ukraine wants Russia to use nuclear weapons, which could hypothetically occur if it completely captures a Russian region and/or is responsible for a nuclear catastrophe through its attacks against Russian nuclear power plants.

The first probably won’t happen since their offensive appears to have been halted, while the second is entirely in Ukraine’s hands, so it’s incumbent on the West to do its utmost to stop them from doing this.

Authored by Brian C. Joondeph via American Thinker,

My flak jacket is on as I write this since I am sure to offend or piss off some friends, family, and colleagues who are ostensibly Republicans or conservatives but have a visceral aversion to Donald Trump.

Some tell me they are Republican and miss Ronald Reagan but also admit they “couldn’t” vote for Donald Trump in either 2016 or 2020. Nothing says one is Republican like voting for a liberal Democrat.

This is the NeverTrump wing of the Republican Party, emerging shortly after Trump secured the GOP nomination in 2016. Reasons for NeverTrump-ism are myriad.

Some were offended by his mean tweets, name-calling, and brash Queens personality. Others disliked his confidence and determination to punch back twice as hard when attacked, particularly when the attacks were bogus (Russian collusion, fine people, grab em by the p***y, etc).

Many establishment Republicans only wanted a nominee who was part of George Carlin’s “big club,” with the last name of Bush, or endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, The Wall Street Journal, or the Koch brothers.

Still others bristled at Trump’s desires to secure America’s borders, avoid foreign wars, achieve American energy independence, and level the playing field of global trade. After all, globalists and the military-industrial complex are happy with and profit immensely from open borders, endless wars, high energy prices, and China-centric trade deals.

In two and a half months, there will be a reckoning, America First versus America Last. The comparisons to four years ago are legion.

Trump attempted to build a border wall, despite NeverTrump resistance from his own party. Biden opened the border to the tune of 10,000 known illegal crossings per day.

Trump nominated three Constitutional Supreme Court justices while Biden nominated one who doesn’t know what a woman is. Democrats want to stack the high court with leftists who will rewrite the U.S. Constitution to resemble Marx and Engels’s Communist Manifesto.

Trump’s economy had high employment and low inflation. The Biden/Harris/Obama economy provided the opposite. Trump did not start any foreign wars during his four years in office. Harris/Obama/Biden started wars between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Iran, and Yemen and the Western world.

Our national debt has eclipsed $35 trillion. Congress spends $12 million per minute. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is 1.37, red line territory. GDP represents all federal income, personal and government, but federal receipts or income is only $4.4 trillion, an eighth of the debt.

If the federal government aimed to eliminate the debt, it would take eight years with zero spending on anything the government currently funds. Our rapidly growing debt is not sustainable without some serious course correction. Who is more likely to steer America in the right direction? Obama/Harris/Biden or Trump? This should be an easy answer.

The current Democrat presidential ticket is two Marxists. They want to command and control all aspects of American economics and life. They will weaponize the government even further to achieve their Orwellian dystopia. The U.K. is imprisoning those who post critical or mean comments on social media. Harris/Walz will say, “Hold my beer” and double down on censorship, punishing anyone who disagrees with Big Brother.

They will regulate the airline industry to the point that air travel is either unaffordable or impractical. Price controls will be added to food and groceries, limiting choices and creating shortages. How did government control of food distribution work in Venezuela and the U.S.S.R.?

Taxes would rise under a Harris administration. So would the minimum wage, making small business so small it no longer exists, while big business simply passes on increased wage costs to consumers, a stealth tax.

Under a Democrat administration, America will send money and U.S. soldiers to defend other countries’ borders, while leaving America’s borders wide open. Illegal aliens will continue terrorizing, injuring, or killing Americans, whether at a Missouri laundromat, a Wisconsin home,  or at a Florida motel.

Cutesy time is over, as Dan Bongino would say. In a few months, America will either have a reset, or a quick slide into tyranny and chaos.

Trump is Trump, his personality almost 80 years in the making. He will not suddenly become Ronald Reagan, with a smooth voice and disarming charm. But so what?

Trump’s brashness is a breath of fresh air compared to career politicians who offer a word salad of platitudes and promises while actually accomplishing nothing.

When you are dying from some strange disease that no one can diagnose or treat, who do you want caring for you? You could have warm, empathetic, fatherly Dr. Marcus Welby, who doesn’t know what’s wrong with you but holds your hand as you die. Or you could have rude, abrasive, obnoxious Dr. Gregory House who, while making fun of you with zero bedside manner, makes the correct diagnosis and prescribes the proper treatment, allowing you to walk out of the hospital a week later.

We are not choosing a prom date, a spouse, a roommate, or a valentine. We are choosing the leader of America and the free world. You may not like Trump’s calling his opponents mean names. But did you object when Bush was called ‘Hitler,’ Trump ‘a Nazi,’ or Paul Ryan “pushed” granny off a cliff?

Politics ain’t beanbag. If your opponent is fighting dirty, you had better step up or you will lose. It seems many NeverTrump Republicans, rather than get their knuckles bloody, would rather take the high road and deliver a kindly concession speech.

What’s more offensive? J.D. Vance tweeting about the new Democrat base of childless cat ladies? Or the U.K. imprisoning one of her citizens for 20 months for posting on Facebook, “Every man and their dog should be smashing f*** out Britannia Hotel.” While at home we have no problem with Daily Beast and CNN contributor Reza Aslan tweeting, “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f***ing thing down.”

Assuming the election actually happens (not derailed by pandemic, cyberattack, or war) and that Harris/Walz is the ticket (rather than Obama, Clinton, or Biden), America is faced with a binary choice. At least the Republican ticket was chosen by voters, unlike the Democrat ticket selected in a smoke-filled room by DNC muckety-mucks.

NeverTrumpers can pout that their preferred guy or gal was rejected, not by the Chamber of Commerce or Wall Street Journal but by Republican voters, instead nominating someone who speaks to the concerns of millions of Americans and is willing to fight for them. It’s a simple choice and not that complicated.

Insurrection Barbie on Twitter concluded a rant with this:

When Trump was president, your streets were safer, your border was secure, your wallet had more money in it, you could buy more goods with your paycheck, and the entire world was at peace instead of on fire.

Voting for communism is not the solution to your precious feelings.

Get a therapist.

Time for NeverTrumpers to put on their big boy pants and think of their country, their children, and grandchildren. Do they want the Marxist world the Democrats are eager to usher in, displayed in real time in the U.K.? Or do they want to push back in the only way practical?

As Ronald Reagan spoke in 1964, it’s “a time for choosing.” Choose wisely.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer. Follow me on Twitter @retinaldoctor, Substack Dr. Brian’s Substack, Truth Social @BrianJoondeph, and LinkedIn @Brian Joondeph.

In 2022, the U.S. official poverty rate was 11.5% with a total of 37.9 million people in poverty.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the three-year average of poverty rates by U.S. state from 2020 to 2022.

The poverty rates are calculated using the official poverty measure, which defines poverty by comparing the pre-tax annual income to a specific national threshold adjusted for family size.

The figures come from the U.S. Census Bureau and are updated as of September 2023.

Southern U.S. Generally More Poor

U.S. poverty rates were relatively higher in the South.

Many of the states with the highest poverty rates, including New Mexico (18.2%), Mississippi (17.8%), Louisiana (16.9%), Arkansas (15.9%), and Kentucky (15.8%), are characterized by large rural areas which are historically poorer than urban areas.

Many of these Southern states also have low levels of education attainment and labor force participation, which contribute to slow economic growth and lower personal income levels.

Nine of the 15 states with the lowest per-worker GDP are in the South, and states like Kentucky and Arkansas are among the states with the lowest prime-age employment-to-population ratio.

On the county level, about one in five counties in the South experienced “persistent poverty,” maintaining a poverty rate above 20% for three decades. Over 80% of all persistently poor counties in the U.S. are located in the South.