Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

There is a stunning number of ironies in the Trump-Biden rematch. At the top of the list is Biden’s belief that he is the only one who could beat Trump.

Wish Granted

At a NATO conference on March 24, 2022 Biden quipped to a reporter “In the next election, I’d be very fortunate if I had that same man running against me.”

Comedian Bill Maher Commented: “The whole rationale for Biden running has always been I’m the only guy who can beat Trump. Now I think it’s inverted. He’s the only guy who can lose to him.”

King of Student Loans

In a press conference briefing in July of 2021, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the Constitutional Facts on Student Loans.

“The president can’t do it,” Pelosi said, at a press briefing. “That’s not even a discussion.”

Pelosi said any student debt forgiveness would have to be carried out by Congress. Other people in her party have said otherwise.

On June 30, 2023, the SCOTUSblog reported Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden Student-Loan Forgiveness Program

But that did not stop the king of student loans. He went ahead with another unconstitutional work around, then bragged about it.

The Supreme Court Didn’t Stop Me

In a White House Briefing on February 4, 2024, Biden bragged “The Supreme Court of the United States blocked me, but they didn’t stop me.“

Immunity for Official Acts

On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled the President has immunity for official acts.

I commented, The Left is Aghast at the Correct Supreme Court Immunity Decision on Trump

In a 6-3 decision, the SC that held the President has immunity for official acts. It was not a complete victory for Trump. In fact, the Court rejected Trump’s base case.

That was my opinion but it was entirely based on the actual  Supreme Court Ruling. Here are a couple of snips from the Court, subtitles mine.

Court Blasts Trump’s Base Case to Outer Space

Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government.

Trump claimed to have absolute immunity. The Court blasted that claim to outer space. Again from the ruling …

Distinguishing Official Acts From Unofficial Ones

The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. …

Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct.

Distinguishing official acts from unofficial ones requires a prosecutorial hearing or fact finding mission to establish what is or is not an official act and what is or is not a constitutional act.

Such hearings are standard procedure for official acts. The Court merely extended the standard procedure to the office of president.

Contrary to hyperventilation by the Left, the SC ruling does not protect the President from unofficial acts or unconstitutional acts.

Truman Example

If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills.

On grounds of national defense, Truman tried to seize steel mills. The Court quickly told Truman no, that’s unconstitutional.

Court Synopsis

The court rejected Trump’s base case, properly cited Truman as an unconstitutional example, and specifically applied its ruling to official acts.

Importantly, official acts must be constitutional!

Truman was acting “officially”, but not “constitutionally”.

The King Moans About Kings

Following the SC Ruling, Biden gave a speech “I Dissent“

This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America.  Each — each of us is equal before the law.  No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. 

With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.  For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. 

Given Biden’s forceful flouting of the Supreme Court not only is that dripping with irony, it’s also a blatant, purposeful lie as any careful reading of the actual ruling shows.

But that did not stop major hyperventilation from the Left including this nonsensical headline from the Huffington Post: Supreme Court Gives Joe Biden The Legal OK To Assassinate Donald Trump

Did anyone bother to read the ruling before commenting?

A Delusional Defense of Biden’s Health

There is a stunning number of ironies in the Trump-Biden rematch. At the top of the list is Biden’s belief that he is the only one who could beat Trump. Wish Granted At a NATO conference on March 24, 2022 Biden quipped to a reporter “In the next election, I’d be very fortunate if I had that same man running against me.” Comedian Bill Maher Commented: “The whole rationale for Biden running has always been I’m the only guy who can beat Trump. Now I think it’s inverted. He’s the only guy who can lose to him.” King of Student Loans In a press conference briefing in July of 2021, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the Constitutional Facts on Student Loans. “The president can’t do it,” Pelosi said, at a press briefing. “That’s not even a discussion.” Pelosi said any student debt forgiveness would have to be carried out by Congress. Other people in her party have said otherwise. On June 30, 2023, the SCOTUSblog reported Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden Student-Loan Forgiveness Program But that did not stop the king of student loans. He went ahead with another unconstitutional work around, then bragged about it. The Supreme Court Didn’t Stop Me In a White House Briefing on February 4, 2024, Biden bragged “The Supreme Court of the United States blocked me, but they didn’t stop me.“ Immunity for Official Acts On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled the President has immunity for official acts. I commented, The Left is Aghast at the Correct Supreme Court Immunity Decision on Trump In a 6-3 decision, the SC that held the President has immunity for official acts. It was not a complete victory for Trump. In fact, the Court rejected Trump’s base case. That was my opinion but it was entirely based on the actual Supreme Court Ruling. Here are a couple of snips from the Court, subtitles mine. Court Blasts Trump’s Base Case to Outer Space Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government. Trump claimed to have absolute immunity. The Court blasted that claim to outer space. Again from the ruling … Distinguishing Official Acts From Unofficial Ones The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. … Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Distinguishing official acts from unofficial ones requires a prosecutorial hearing or fact finding mission to establish what is or is not an official act and what is or is not a constitutional act. Such hearings are standard procedure for official acts. The Court merely extended the standard procedure to the office of president. Contrary to hyperventilation by the Left, the SC ruling does not protect the President from unofficial acts or unconstitutional acts. Truman Example If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. On grounds of national defense, Truman tried to seize steel mills. The Court quickly told Truman no, that’s unconstitutional. Court Synopsis The court rejected Trump’s base case, properly cited Truman as an unconstitutional example, and specifically applied its ruling to official acts. Importantly, official acts must be constitutional! Truman was acting “officially”, but not “constitutionally”. The King Moans About Kings Following the SC Ruling, Biden gave a speech “I Dissent“ This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each — each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. Given Biden’s forceful flouting of the Supreme Court not only is that dripping with irony, it’s also a blatant, purposeful lie as any careful reading of the actual ruling shows. But that did not stop major hyperventilation from the Left including this nonsensical headline from the Huffington Post: Supreme Court Gives Joe Biden The Legal OK To Assassinate Donald Trump Did anyone bother to read the ruling before commenting? A Delusional Defense of Biden’s Health “He’s probably in better health than most of us.” What?! Nate Silver replied, “They can’t tell the truth, that their candidate is well below the threshold of someone who should be president for another 4 years, so they tell obvious lies that nobody but the dumbest partisans will buy.” In another bit of delusional madness … Biden Says ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’ On May 7, 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’ “My son has done nothing wrong,” the President said on MSNBC. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my Presidency by making me feel proud of him.” Not Confidence Inspiring The Guardian comments Joe Biden is taking advice from his son, Hunter. This does not inspire confidence. The Biden clan gathered at Camp David on Sunday and, according to multiple reports, urged him to “keep fighting”. The New York Times stated: “One of the strongest voices imploring Mr Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son, Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice.” Which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence: Hunter has poor judgment and a well-documented history of scandals. (To be clear, I am not sneering at his drug use; addicts deserve empathy. Drugs aside, his questionable business dealings and chaotic personal life make it difficult to look at Hunter and think: “Yeah, that’s a guy I should take advice from.”) Three Hunter Ironies The Hunter irony is threefold. First, the president is taking advice from someone whose motive is clearly suspect. Second, the President goes around calling Trump a convicted felon. The third irony is the New York trial was so flawed conviction is highly likely to be overturned but the Hunter felony will stand. A Travesty of Justice On May 30, Trump was convicted of a felony. Ironically, no one can precisely say what the felony is. I commented Trump Found Guilty – a Travesty of Justice for America A misdemeanor, on which the Statute of Limitations had run out, was used to produced 34 felony counts on committing a Federal offense for which he was not charged. They will say “No one is above the law”. Indeed. But no one should be beneath the law either. Every effort has been made to put Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Hillary Clinton above the law. And every effort has been made to put Trump beneath the law, including judicial instructions. I am outraged and I don’t even care for Trump. Everyone should be outraged. The trial was unfair because there should not have been a trial at all. On Getting Their Wish So, here we are. Biden got his wish that nearly all Democrats now regret. The DNC went along, greasing the wheels for a renomination and eliminating debate despite (or was it because of) the President’s increasingly obvious senility. Judging from a recent cornucopia of posts on the New York Times, Washington Post, the Guardian, etc., Democrats have a new wish, for Biden to step down. Sorry, the wish fairy only grants one political wish. It’s now up to Jill or Hunter to convince Joe to stand down. That does not look promising now. However, there’s a decent chance the President soon will not be able to walk or say anything coherent even in the newly designated prime hours of 9:00AM to 4:00PM. Yet, the longer the delay, the worse it looks. There is not a reasonable person on the planet who believe Biden can last another year, let alone four more years. Effectively, the ne battle cry is “Four More Months!” Democrats got what they deserve. Unfortunately, it’s not what the nation deserves. That’s the final irony in a sorry script fully loaded with ironies.

“He’s probably in better health than most of us.”

What?!

Nate Silver replied, “They can’t tell the truth, that their candidate is well below the threshold of someone who should be president for another 4 years, so they tell obvious lies that nobody but the dumbest partisans will buy.”

In another bit of delusional madness …

Biden Says ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’

On May 7, 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’

“My son has done nothing wrong,” the President said on MSNBC. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my Presidency by making me feel proud of him.”

Not Confidence Inspiring

The Guardian comments Joe Biden is taking advice from his son, Hunter. This does not inspire confidence.

The Biden clan gathered at Camp David on Sunday and, according to multiple reports, urged him to “keep fighting”. The New York Times stated: “One of the strongest voices imploring Mr Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son, Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice.” Which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence: Hunter has poor judgment and a well-documented history of scandals. (To be clear, I am not sneering at his drug use; addicts deserve empathy. Drugs aside, his questionable business dealings and chaotic personal life make it difficult to look at Hunter and think: “Yeah, that’s a guy I should take advice from.”)

Three Hunter Ironies

The Hunter irony is threefold. First, the president is taking advice from someone whose motive is clearly suspect.

Second, the President goes around calling Trump a convicted felon.

The third irony is the New York trial was so flawed conviction is highly likely to be overturned but the Hunter felony will stand.

A Travesty of Justice

On May 30, Trump was convicted of a felony. Ironically, no one can precisely say what the felony is.

I commented Trump Found Guilty – a Travesty of Justice for America

A misdemeanor, on which the Statute of Limitations had run out, was used to produced 34 felony counts on committing a Federal offense for which he was not charged.

They will say “No one is above the law”. Indeed. But no one should be beneath the law either.

Every effort has been made to put Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Hillary Clinton above the law. And every effort has been made to put Trump beneath the law, including judicial instructions.

I am outraged and I don’t even care for Trump. Everyone should be outraged. The trial was unfair because there should not have been a trial at all.

On Getting Their Wish

So, here we are. Biden got his wish that nearly all Democrats now regret.

The DNC went along, greasing the wheels for a renomination and eliminating debate despite (or was it because of) the President’s increasingly obvious senility.

Judging from a recent cornucopia of posts on the New York Times, Washington Post, the Guardian, etc., Democrats have a new wish, for Biden to step down.

Sorry, the wish fairy only grants one political wish.

It’s now up to Jill or Hunter to convince Joe to stand down. That does not look promising now. However, there’s a decent chance the President soon will not be able to walk or say anything coherent even in the newly designated prime hours of 9:00AM to 4:00PM.

Yet, the longer the delay, the worse it looks. There is not a reasonable person on the planet who believe Biden can last another year, let alone four more years.

Effectively, the ne battle cry is “Four More Months!”

Democrats got what they deserve. Unfortunately, it’s not what the nation deserves.

That’s the final irony in a sorry script fully loaded with ironies.

The United States is hosting this year’s major annual NATO Summit in Washington DC on July 9,10, and 11. Heads of state, foreign ministers, and diplomats from across Europe will be in attendance, as will of course President Joe Biden. 

A big question that remains is how far the alliance will go in encouraging Ukraine’s ambitions to join. Currently the US is pushing the ambiguous language of offering Kiev a “bridge” to NATO while demanding reforms especially in the area of corruption. Zelensky is not happy, given that not even a timeline for membership appears to be on the table.

Still, there are enough hawks among Western leaders to present the possibility of launching Ukraine on an ‘irreversible’ path to membership, which many observers fear will only eventually trigger WW3 with Russia. 

Days ago, and just around the corner from the summit’s start, dozens of foreign policy experts have issued a letter which sounds the alarm on the question of advancing Ukrainian membership. The group is warning that should Kiev ever be admitted, it would trigger NATO’s Article 5, and require Western states to enter a nuclear-armed conflict with Russia.

“The closer NATO comes to promising that Ukraine will join the alliance once the war ends, the greater the incentive for Russia to keep fighting the war,” the letter, signed by over 60 analysts, reads. “The challenges Russia poses can be managed without bringing Ukraine into NATO.”

The letter argues that encouraging NATO membership only plays into Putin’s narrative, and in the end ensures “turning Ukraine into the site of a prolonged showdown between the world’s two leading nuclear powers.”

At one point the group says that advancing Ukraine’s membership presents the risk of the “unraveling of NATO itself”. According to a section from the letter [emphasis ZH]:

Some claim that the act of bringing Ukraine into NATO would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again. That is wishful thinking. Since Russia began invading Ukraine in 2014, NATO Allies have demonstrated through their actions that they do not believe the stakes of the conflict, while significant, justify the price of war.

If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of NATO’s security guarantee — and would gain an opportunity to test and potentially rupture the alliance. The result could be a direct NATO-Russia war or the unraveling of NATO itself.

Below is the letter in full, followed by the list of signatories, which was first reported and posted online by Politico…

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Last night, President Joe Biden refused to take a cognitive or neurological test despite widespread concerns over his physical and mental decline. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed the President on his low polling and efforts of Democrats to get him to drop out of the race. He specifically mentioned the effort of Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) to organize members to pressure him to end his campaign. Biden took a not-so-subtle dig at Warner. However, it was nothing compared to a curious posting by author and Democratic activist Don Winslow, who appeared to threaten Warner on X (formerly Twitter).

When the story broke in the Washington Post, Winslow posted a curious and ominous response:

Dear @MarkWarner

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

You definitely know what I’m talking about.

Think about it very carefully.

— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) July 6, 2024

It is not clear what Winslow meant by Warner knowing what he was talking about when asking if he was “sure you want to go down this road?”

The message has caused a bit of a stir on the Hill. For the denizens of the Beltway, it sounds extortive and threatening. The suggestion is that Winslow has something on Warner.

While some have asked whether this could be viewed as a threat criminally, it is clearly not sufficient for a charge. Warner is a public figure and this comment could just be a reference to political backlash or the lack of an alternative.

His asking Warner “Are you sure you want to go down this road?” could be a reference to the political implications of the resulting chaos, including making Kamala Harris the presidential candidate. Harris is even less popular than Biden according to some polls. While some polls show her doing slightly better than Biden against Trump, other polling shows that she would do considerably worse.

However, it is the follow up of “Think about it very carefully” that has got tongues wagging in D.C.

Whatever the intended meaning, the posting shows the depth of the division on the issue. Those divisions are only likely to deepen further after the refusal to take a test to put these concerns to rest.

Notably, Biden has insisted that the public can simply observe him. However, that position stands in contradiction to the frivolous privilege claims made by the Administration to withhold the audiotape from the interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. That was an interview that the President was prepared for in advance and held in ideal conditions with staff. It is an opportunity for the public to hear him under questioning to reach the very conclusions that Biden suggested in the interview.

As for Winslow’s posting, it may just be an incautious, poorly worded message rather than extortion or blackmail. We have all made postings that we regretted.

The real issue for Democrats is how to address this looming issue without tearing the party apart. I have tried to drill down on the legal implications of swapping out the top of the ticket or the entire ticket. It is uncharted territory when it comes to the federal election laws on the use of past contributions as well as some states with restrictive rules on ballot changes.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Dagestan and Karachay-Cherkessia temporarily banned the niqab on security-related pretexts in the aftermath of last month’s terrorist attacks in Dagestan. The temporary nature of this restriction is meant to avoid violating federal law after a government document from the Cabinet seen by Kommersant in late May described a full ban as unconstitutional. That came in response to the head of the Human Rights Council calling for this shortly after late March’s Crocus terrorist attack.

It’s ironic that Russia’s majority-Orthodox Cabinet considers a full ban to be an unconstitutional violation of its citizens’ freedom of religion while at least two of its majority-Muslim regions thus far consider a temporary one to be a prudent security-related measure. This disconnect is likely due to the first’s fear of offending Russia’s growing Muslim minority, which the Grand Mufti predicted in 2019 will constitute around one-third of the population in the next 15 years, and the second’s on-the-ground reality.

The Cabinet might be acting nobly, and there’s no doubt that there’s a sizeable segment of this minority that would object to banning the niqab, but those Muslims on the front line of Russia’s domestic War on Terror in the North Caucasus understand the pragmatism behind temporary measures. At the very least, the niqab can be worn by male terrorists to disguise themselves in order to move freely among society while smuggling explosives and/or weapons, thus making this garment a security risk.

There’s also the fact that the Central Asian Republics from which the vast majority of Russia’s migrant population originates have banned the niqab to varying degrees for similar security-related reasons as well as concerns that this foreign (Arab) tradition contributes to radicalizing members of society. By letting their citizens wear it during their stay in Russia, the federal government is inadvertently undermining their policies, which in turn risks destabilizing those countries once those citizens return.

“Putin & The Patriarch Reminded Russians That Ethno-Religious Hate Speech Is Unacceptable” as part of their national unity efforts after the Crocus terrorist attack, but publicly discussing the socio-security benefits of banning the niqab doesn’t constitute such. It’s only controversial if someone associates terrorism with Islam like the Head of the Russian Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin recently did while lobbying for this policy and accidentally upset Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov as a result.

The latter’s region already informally banned the niqab long ago, with this being the case beyond any doubt after a group of women were scolded on local TV in late 2020 for wearing this garment in public and then forced to remove it. Chechnya, much more than any other region in Russia, understands the socio-security risks of applying a laissez-faire approach towards foreign religious traditions even if this is for well-intentioned reasons related to upholding citizens’ human rights and whatnot.

While the federal government might remain fearful of reversing its position on the alleged unconstitutionality of officially banning the niqab, Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Chechnya, Dagestan, and Karachay-Cherkessia are paving the way through their informal and temporary bans. More regions could foreseeably follow their lead and couldn’t be accused of ethno-religious hate speech since it’s Russian Muslims themselves that are pioneering this pragmatic solution to such a sensitive issue.  

Authored by Amaka Nwaokocha via CoinTelegraph.com,

Spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced a surge in inflows on July 6, following the recent U.S. Independence Day, during which Bitcoin’s price dropped below $54,000.

According to Farside monitoring, this is their largest net inflow in a month, with a remarkable $143.1 million flowing into these financial products.

Strong inflows

The Fidelity Bitcoin ETF (FBTC) led the inflows with an impressive $117 million, highlighting strong investor confidence in the fund. Following FBTC, the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB) recorded a net inflow of $30.2 million, while the ARKB and HODL ETFs saw inflows of $11.3 million and $12.8 million, respectively.

Conversely, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) experienced a net outflow of $28.6 million, starkly contrasting the positive trend across other spot Bitcoin ETFs.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs bounced back strongly.    Source: Farside Investors

Despite the recent market turbulence, the substantial inflows into these ETFs suggest that institutional investors and large-scale buyers are taking advantage of the dip to accumulate Bitcoin at lower prices.

Prime opportunity to buy Bitcoin

Hunter Horsley, CEO of Bitwise Asset Management, highlighted in a post on X social platform his team’s efficiency in acquiring Bitcoin, managing to do so at a cost of less than half a basis point.

Horsley also emphasized the strong outlook for Bitcoin, suggesting that the current market conditions present a valuable buying opportunity for both new and existing investors.

“The outlook for Bitcoin has never been stronger. For many who don’t yet have exposure, this week is a chance to buy the dip,” he stated.

During the first week of July, BITB registered inflows exceeding $66 million, increasing its total Bitcoin holdings to over 38,000. Despite short-term volatility, this growth shows continued confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term potential.

Renowned Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff also offered his perspective on the resilience of Bitcoin ETF investors. Despite recent market fluctuations, Schiff observed that these investors remain committed to holding their assets, showing no signs of panic.

“So far, there’s no sign of panic. It will likely take a much larger drop in Bitcoin before they finally capitulate,” Schiff commented.

He further predicted that a significant sell-off could occur soon, potentially leading to a capitulation among Bitcoin holders.

Bitcoin fell to $55,200 on Coinbase after the collapsed Japanese crypto exchange Mt. Gox transferred 47,229 Bitcoin – worth $2.71 billion at current prices – to a new wallet address in its first major transaction since May.

The reformist and ‘moderate’ Masoud Pezeshkian has been elected as Iran’s new president, defeating his hardline conservative rival Saeed Jalili, after gaining 53.3% of the 30+ million votes counted.

While Jalili was seen as the status quo candidate, by and large expected to continue his predecessor’s policies, Pezeshkian, a heart surgeon and member of the Iranian parliament, has vowed to seek an end to the Islamic Republic’s global isolation.

As part of this push, the 71-year old has called for “constructive negotiations” with the West on Iran’s nuclear program, in hopes getting US-led sanctions removed or at least softened. Iran has on a monthly basis been expanding its Uranium enrichment and purity, bringing it closer to the ability to produce a nuclear weapon if it decides to do so. Israel has meanwhile threatened preemptive attack if this happens.

After years of intermittent anti-government protests, including the months-long ‘hijab protests’ which were triggered by a young woman’s death at the hands of the morality police, Dr. Pezeshkian is promising “unity and cohesion” between the government and population.

He has personally long been critical of the morality police, which boosted his popularity among younger and professional young family circles. Already young people have been seen celebrating in the streets of major cities, in hopes of a new era for Iran.

Pezeshkian’s victory is the result of a run-off after the June 28 first round election failed to result in a clear majority for either candidate. June 28 saw a historically low voter turnout of just 40% – and was a little over a month after the late President Ebrahim Raisi’s helicopter crashed in northern Iran near the border with Azerbaijan. Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian were killed, along with other top officials.

According to the numbers from the run-off which secured Pezeshkian’s victory:

With all ballots counted, Pezeshkian secured 16.4 million votes, while Jalili received 13.5 million votes, Press TV reports. Turnout was 30.5 million, or 49.8% of the 61 million eligible voters, according to a final update at 6:45 am local time (3:15 GMT).

Iran’s Foreign Minister announced Saturday, “The great nation of Iran once again stood proud in the test of loyalty to the holy system of the Islamic Republic and protection of our beloved Iran. Now is the season of empathy, unity and national cohesion for progress and ever-increasing authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Very quickly on the news, the leaders of China, India and Russia were among the first to congratulate Pezeshkian on his victory.

Upon the first round of voting, it became increasingly apparent that regions were choosing their candidate largely along ethnic lines…

Another voting pattern map created by @bbcpersian indicates that ultra conservative Saeed Jalili has won in Persian majority provinces. With few exceptions, non Persian voters in border provinces have overwhelmingly voted for reformist and ethnic Azerbaijani Masoud Pezeshkian. pic.twitter.com/hIn482Mkf6

— Ahmad Hashemi (@MrAhmadHashemi) July 1, 2024

Below is a brief partial backgrounder on the newly elected Iranian president via Anadolu Agency…

* * *

A relatively low-profile political figure, Pezeshkian served as health minister in the government of Mohammad Khatami (2001-2005) and has represented the northwestern city of Tabriz in the Iranian parliament since 2008. A cardiologist by practice, Pezeshkian previously headed the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, one of the leading medical institutions in northern Iran.

His two previous unsuccessful bids for the presidency came in 2013 and 2021, respectively. In 2013, he withdrew from the presidential race in the later stages in favor of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani; in 2021, his candidacy was rejected by the Guardian Council, the country’s top vetting body.

As the only reformist candidate in the race this time around, backed by the country’s leading reformist coalition, Pezeshkian engaged in hectic campaigning in recent weeks. His campaign was bolstered by the presence of former reformist politicians and ministers, including Javad Zarif, who served as foreign minister for two terms under former President Hassan Rouhani.

Authored by Tony Morrison via DailySceptic.org,

The debacle that was President Biden’s performance at last Thursday’s Presidential debate divided America. Half were astonished to see someone with a crypt-keeper vibe who was obviously dazed and confused and whose language consisted mainly of mumbling nonsense that often trailed off into sheer incomprehensibility. The other half merely saw business as usual from Biden. Political pundits refer to this phenomenon as, in the words of Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, “one screen, two movies”.

Much of the blame for this societal dissonance lies in the unhealthy alliance of our MSM (mainstream media composed of broadcast networks and major newspapers) and the Democrat Party. Since at least the 1990s the MSM have been operating as a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party as opposed to providing “truth to power”. The MSM are gradually losing the battle for relevance in the huge flourishing of, first, cable networks and now internet-based sites, podcasts and assorted social media, but they are still powerful in their waning days. They trashed Trump merrily during his Presidency, pushed Biden over the finish line in 2020, and have carried Biden’s water since then.

And since 2020 the MSM have been carrying more water for Biden than the Ganges in monsoon season. Biden’s deterioration has been evident for some years and it became an issue in the 2020 election. Brit Hume, one of journalism’s grey eminences, posed that Biden was senile based on his manner, behaviour and actions. MSM “fact-checkers” protected the precious candidate. But Biden and his handlers took notice that they had been rumbled and used the excuse of Covid from early 2020 on to hide Biden away campaigning from his basement. MSM ignored his concerning demeanor completely and supported him for President in words that would have embarrassed George Washington.

After a most unusual election came a most unusual Presidency, where the hiding away of the most powerful man in the world continued. Appearances were controlled, press conferences limited and interviews permitted only in controlled scripted environments such as with celebrities or on late night talk shows. Biden’s deteriorating physical condition, as well as his mental decline, were covered up by his handlers in a number of ways.   

This year, two events began to poke serious holes in the view that Biden is just old. Last year a Special Counsel, Robert Hur, was appointed to conduct an investigation into the finding of classified documents at Biden’s residences. He reported his findings in January. The report was not kind to Biden to say the least. He stated that Biden should not be prosecuted for the documents because a jury would not find him guilty as they would be sympathetic to the fact he was a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. NBC News dutifully provided covering fire for this by rolling out Democrat operatives to trash both Hur and the report.

Then there were the recent international events such as D-Day and the G7 meetings, where Biden was caught on camera spacing out and wandering off. The videos were shown on Fox News and went viral. The Associated Press stepped up for the covering fire and called them “cheap fakes”, following on from the White House reaction.  A bemused Fox News said the videos “have not been cropped, they have not been sped up or slowed down or edited in any way”.

And then came the debate. Biden had slipped in the polls against Trump due to the response from voters to seeing a candidate pursue the Kafka-esque strategy of putting an opponent on trial. And so Biden and his handlers came up with a cunning plan – to challenge Trump to a debate in an environment they believed they could control. They set the rules, selected the moderators (CNN, who had earlier supplied the questions in advance to Hillary Clinton in a 2016 debate), had no audience that would cause Biden to lose focus, and banned any cross-talk to limit Trump’s quick repartee. Biden spent seven days at Camp David prepping for the debate as if there was nothing else going on that required his attention. It was a brilliant strategy and only one thing could ruin it – the senility of the candidate. It did.

The reaction was immediate from folks believing in Biden. Democrats and Never-Trumpers were gob-smacked. But it is fascinating how their surprise was akin to reading the last few pages of an Agatha Christie novel. Massive surprise at the unveiling of the murderer is followed by an “oh yeah” as folks think back on the clues that were there all along. These reactions showed up in polls taken over the last few days. A CBS News poll two days after the debate showed 72% of folks now believe Biden’s cognitive issues prohibit him from being President, and this includes 42% of Democrat voters.

The immediate reactions of the MSM were different. At 10:30 that night the panicked howls of the MSNBC political pundits and “experts” mourned the death of their favoured campaign, while CNN threw ashes on the coffin. The New York Times suffered a dark night of the soul, and as the dawn broke published an editorial claiming Biden should step down. These are the guys who in March this year were taking a victory lap comparing Biden to Beethoven, Wagner and Martin Scorsese after Biden angrily shouted his way through a teleprompter speech to Congress.

The assorted Democrat Party apparatchiks and elected representatives were even more on fire. The donors did not like seeing their investment go down the drain. Many wanted their money back. Incumbent Democrats facing election in November were all over the place, with the mood varying from total support to calls to step down. In a Presidential election year Biden is at the top of the ticket and so has the capability of dragging these guys over the finish line, as party regulars tend to vote the entire line. Or not, as the case may be.

The White House gamely tried damage control, saying Biden was ill with a cold or suffering from jet lag after two back-to-back trips to Europe two weeks before the debate. The usually obedient White House Press Corps did not buy it.

No word as yet from White House doctor Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who gave Biden his annual physical this year and claimed he was “fit for duty“.

As for the Biden campaign, its response came four days later on Monday night when he addressed the nation on TV. The Supreme Court had issued a ruling on Presidential immunity when carrying out constitutional duties that essentially destroyed the strategy to tie Trump up in court for bogus charges. All Biden had to do was give a stirring speech on TV about the evil Supreme Court as a dramatic riposte to the debate nightmare. Unfortunately, Biden stank up the joint once again. His speech was only four minutes long, delivered in the trademark Biden mumble. He read both his speech and his instructions (“end of quote”) off the teleprompter. And it did not help that Biden’s face was painted with orange make-up in a vain effort to look as vibrant as his opponent.

This story is going to take a while to play out as the Democrat Party is on the horns of a dilemma. Biden is still planning on running and if he (or those around him) want him to, he will. His delegates (over 90%) have to vote for him on a first ballot at the Democratic Convention in August, which makes him the Democrat nominee. Only pressure from Democrats, anxious about a thrashing in November if he heads the ticket, can change this. But try that with a cranky, senile, elderly man. Also, the $100 million campaign war chest he has raised so far can only be transferred to his VP, Kamala Harris. And Democrats, apart from those who want the first POC woman as President, do not want her as she is, unbelievably, more unpopular than Biden with the public. Raising that kind of money and formulating a nationwide campaign is unrealistic with just four months left. Whatever strategy is followed, one thing is clear – the MSM will support whatever path is chosen by the Democrat Party.

Left out of all this is the state of the country. The focus at the moment is on Biden the candidate, but it is Biden as President for the next six months that is far more worrying. The MSM and Democrat Party, however, cannot waste too much time on something as trivial as the state of the nation. Not when there is an election to win.

Authored by David Stockman via InternationalMan.com,

What passes for central banking today is really a perverse form of Wall Street-pleasing monetary manipulation. It employs the vocabulary of central banking, but in practice it fundamentally undermines main street prosperity, even as it showers the 1% (the top wealthiest people) with unspeakable financial windfalls.

Stated differently, virtually everything the Fed does for the alleged benefit of the American economy is both unnecessary and a ruse. The Fed has actually become a captive of the Wall Street traders, gamblers and high rollers, and functions mainly at their behest.

The proof of this proposition starts with the startling historical fact that the post-war US economy did just fine without any interest rate targeting, heavy-duty bond-buying or general macroeconomic management help from the Fed at all. For all practical purposes today’s omnipresent Fed domination of the financial and economic system was non-existent at that point in time.

We are referring to the full decade between Q4 1951 and Q3 1962 when the balance sheet of the Fed remained flat as a board at just $51 billion (black line). Yet the US economy did not gasp for lack of monetary oxygen. GDP grew from $356 billion to $609 billion or by 71% (purple line) during the period. That’s nominal growth of 5.1% per annum, and the majority of it represented real output gains, not inflation.

Change in Federal Reserve Balance Sheet Versus GDP, Q4 1951 to Q3 1962.

As it happened, this halcyon span encompassed the immediate period after the so-called Treasury-Fed Accord of March 1951, which finally ended the WWII expedient that had pegged Treasury bills at 0.375% and the long-bond at 2.5o% in order to finance the massive flow of war debt.

The effect of the WWII pegs, of course, was that the Fed had been obliged to absorb any and all US Treasury supply that did not clear the market at the target yields. Not surprisingly, the Fed’s 1937 balance sheet of $12 billion had risen by 4.3X to $51 billion by the time of the Accord, thereby reflecting what amounted to the original version of backdoor monetization of the public debt, which was justified at the time by the exigencies of war.

By contrast, in the post-peg period shown below interest rates were allowed by a newly liberated Fed to find their own market clearing levels. So there was no continuous guessing game on Wall Street about where the next monthly Fed meeting would peg short-term interest rates. Back then, it was understood that the forces of supply and demand down in the bond pits of Wall Street were fully capable of discovering the right interest rates, given the financial and economic facts then extant.

The combination of high growth, robust investment, strong wages and smartly rising real family income, on the one hand, and rock-bottom inflation on the other, surely constitutes the gold standard of performance for a modern capitalist economy.

And yet, and yet. It was all accomplished under a regime of persistent “light touch” central banking that assumed free market capitalism would find its own way to optimum economic growth, employment, housing, investment and main street prosperity. No monetary Sherpa at the Eccles Building was necessary.

Even more crucially, no money printing was necessary, either. The sterling economic results depicted below happened during a 11-year period when the Fed did not purchase one net dime of U.S. Treasury debt!

Per Annum Change, Q4 1951 to Q3 1962

• Real Final Sales: +3.8%.

• Real Domestic Investment: +4.1%.

• Nonfarm productivity growth: +2.5%.

• Real hourly wages: +3%.

• Real Median Family Income: +2.3%.

• CPI Increase: +1.3%

Federal Reserve Liabilities, 1937 to 1962

There is absolutely nothing about this period that makes the superior macroeconomic performance summarized above aberrational, flukish or unreplicable. In fact, President Eisenhower cut defense spending sharply and eliminated the fiscal deficit entirely during his second term. So, the cumulative increase in the public debt during this 11-year period was just $30 billion or a tiny 0.6% of GDP owing to Korean War borrowing early in the period.

But even this modest debt increase wasn’t monetized by Fed bond-buying. Instead, it was effectively financed out of private savings in the bond pits. Long-term bond yields, therefore, actually rose from the 2.5% pegged level shown below for 1942 to 1951 to upwards of 4% by the end of the period, as dictated by supply and demand. Still, the CPI averaged just 1.2% during 1959-1962, meaning that real yields bordered on +3.o% during the early 1960s.

That is to say, at the time, the Fed had seen no need to push real rates to zero and even into negative territory as has been the case for much of the last two decades. The fact is, the main street economy prospered mightily even when inflation-adjusted rates were providing a solid return to savers and investors.

Long-Term US Treasury Bond Yield, 1942 to 1962

What ended the benign economics of 1951 to 1962, of course, was the scourge of War Finance. LBJ (Lyndon B. Johnson) escalated the Vietnam War dramatically after 1963, causing the debt to soar and the 10-year UST to climb to nearly 6% by early 1968. But Johnson was not about to allow market clearing interest rates to fund his misbegotten venture in bringing the blessings of the Great Society to southeast Asia.

So he gave “the treatment” to the Fed Chairman at his Texas ranch and ordered to cut the Federal funds rate to accommodate LBJ’s surging Federal deficit. The latter had grown from $4.8 billion and -0.8% of GDP in 1963 to $25.2 billion and -2.8% of GDP by 1968.

Unfortunately, after steadily and appropriately raising the Fed funds rate from 2.9% in December 1962 to 5.75% by November 1966 as Johnson’s inflationary deficits grew, the funds rate was brought down rapidly to 3.8% by July 1967. In turn, that unleashed a red-hot wave of speculation and inflation, with the CPI rising from a 1% Y/Y (year-on-year) gain in August 1964 to a +6.4% peak in February 1970.

There is no mystery as to why the inflationary genie was now out of the bottle. Between Q3 1962 and Q4 1970, the Fed’s heretofore flat balance sheet (black line) soared skyward, rising from $52 billion to $85 billion over the eight-year period. That amounted to a 6% per year gain, meaning that the precedent for aggressive balance sheet expansion had now been firmly established.

Inflation-Adjusted Yield on 10-Year UST Versus Fed Balance Sheet Growth, 1962 to 1970

The first victim, of course, was inflation-adjusted bond yields (purple line above). As shown above, the healthy +3% real yield of 1962 fell to barely +1% by the end of 1970.

Yet the crucial essence of this “guns and butter” breakdown cannot be gainsaid. To wit, the Fed was not driven to this first round of post-war money-printing and debt monetization because the private economy had gone into a mysterious swoon or failure mode and therefore needed a helping hand from the nation’s central bank.

To the contrary, this was a Washington driven departure from sound central banking pure and simple. And as we will amplify below, it was off to the races of Rogue Central Banking from there.

Once the inflation genie was out of the bottle with the CPI clocking in at 6% by the fall of 1970, the Fed struggled for more than a decade to put it back. Consequently, any focus on stimulating growth, jobs, housing and investment was infrequent and definitely secondary to inflation-fighting.

We amplify the 1970s flood of central bank money and the resulting inflationary mess below, but it is important to note at the onset that despite four recessions (1970, 1975, 1980 and 1981) and very little pro-growth help from what was now an inflation-preoccupied Fed, the US economy did expand at a decent clip during the interval between Q4 1969 and Q2 1987.

The economic growth rate (real final sales basis) averaged a solid +3.1% per annum, but that occurred due to the inherent growth propensities of private capitalism and despite the roadblocks thrown up by periodic bouts of monetary stringency. In fact, three Fed chairman served during that 17.5-year interval—Burns, Miller and Volcker—and with varying degrees of success their focus was overwhelmingly on suppressing inflation, not goosing growth.

As it happened, the growth rates of jobs, productivity and real median family income during this period were not especially outstanding, but these metrics didn’t plunge into an economic black hole, either.

Self-evidently, these outcomes on main street were the work of market capitalism, not the central bank. The latter was leaning hard against inflation during most of the period—so this absence of central bank “help” is just further proof that easy money stimulus is not necessary for solid growth and main street prosperity.

Per Annum Change, Q4 1969 to Q2 1987

• Real Final Sales of Domestic Product: +3.1%.

• Labor hours employed: +1.5%.

• Nonfarm productivity: +1.8%.

• Real Median Family Income: +1.2%.

For avoidance of doubt, here is the path of the Federal funds rate as the above macroeconomic performance was unfolding. To wit, the Fed’s recurrent anti-inflation initiatives caused the funds rate to gyrate wildly like some kind of monetary jumping bean. In the run-up to each of the four recessions designated by the shaded areas of the graph, the increase in the Fed funds rate was as follows:

• 1970: +340 basis points.

• 1974: +960 basis points.

• 1980: +1,290 basis points.

• 1981: +440 basis points.

Needless to say, these successive rate-raising campaigns amounted to hammer blows to the main street economy. There is no way that these violent interest rate swings and the consequent start and stop economic cycles—four recessions in only 17 years— were a tonic for growth during this era of high and volatile inflation.

In effect, the reasonably solid macroeconomic performance quantified above represents a kind of free market minimum. It reflects the relentless drive of workers, consumers, entrepreneurs, businessmen, investors, savers and speculators to better their own economic circumstances—even in the face of inflationary roadblocks and anti-inflation financial manipulation by the central bank.

Federal Funds Rate, August 1968 to June 1987

Of course, the inflationary roadblocks were enormous, and far beyond any prior peacetime experience. Compared to the 1.3% inflation average during 1951 to 1962, the CPI rose at a 5.6% rate over 1969:4 to 1987:2.

And that included the benefit of the sharp drop in inflation engineered by Paul Volcker during the final four years of the period. Thus, during the decade of the 1970s through the Y/Y inflation peak at 14.6% in April 1980, the CPI rose by an average of 7.7% per annum.

In turn, this introduced the wage-earning classes for the first time to the treadmill of robustly rising nominal wage rates, which become almost entirely consumed by sharply rising consumer prices. Thus, during the decade ending in the inflationary peak of Q2 1980, average hourly earnings in nominal terms rose by 7.6% per annum. But, alas, what stuck to the walls of workers’ bank accounts was a gain of only 1.1% per annum during the same period. All the rest was eaten up by inflation.

Y/Y Change in the CPI, 1960 to 1987

If the wage/price treadmill effect introduced after 1969 was the whole story, the impact might be considered minimally tolerable. The resilience of market capitalism was shown to be sufficiently strong so as to overcome much of the inflationary headwinds, along with the Fed’s punishing cycles of anti-inflation tightening.

Unfortunately, however, what also materialized out of the 1970s inflation era were two exceedingly harmful corollaries.

The first was the notion that the job of the central bank was to manage the rate of change in the general price level, rather than the far more modest original remit. The latter presumed the presence of noninflationary gold-backed money—so inflation-management would have been an oxymoron. Consequently, the Fed’s actual statutory mandate was simply to provide liquidity and reserves to the banking system based on market rates of interest. The Fed heads didn’t need to know from the CPI, PCE deflator or any other modern inflation measuring stick that had not yet been invented.

As it happened, however, management of the short run pace by which the general price level is rising was a fateful portal into statist central banking and the plenary management of the macro-economy in which the inflation indices are inextricably embedded. Eventually the bastard son of this strategic opening to vastly expanded state power materialized as the holy grail of 2% inflation.

Yet, here’s the thing. Until the gold-backed dollar was deep-sixed by Nixon in August 1971 and the possibility of rising, persistent and eventually double-digit peacetime inflation materialized in the 1970s, the idea of central bank management of the inflation rate didn’t even exist. That’s because peacetime price stability was the default condition of the gold standard world. Indeed, from the Napoleonic Wars forward, “inflation” and wartime were pretty much synonymous because fiat money was almost invariably a temporary wartime expedient.

The other legacy of the inflationary 1970s was the breakout of high and ever rising unit labor costs in the US economy. This unnecessary but pervasive economic deformation eventually resulted in the massive offshoring of the US industrial economy.

The implication, of course, is that it would have been far better to stick with William McChesney Martin’s golden era of high growth, low inflation, a flat Federal Reserve balance sheet and interest rates driven overwhelmingly by supply and demand forces in the private financial markets. But as it happened, the Fed’s balance sheet during the decade of high inflation was the very opposite of flat.

Under the three successive Chairmen, the Fed’s balance sheet grew at the following compound annual rates:

• Arthur Burns (Feb. 1970 to March 1978): +6.9%.

• William Miller (March 1978 to August 1979): +9.5%.

• Paul Volcker (August 1979 to August 1987): +6.8%.

Growth Lift-off of Federal Reserve Balance Sheet, Q1 1970 to Q2 1987

In a word, Volcker sharply slowed the runaway growth of the Fed’s balance sheet which had occurred under the regime of William Miller – the hapless former CEO of a conglomerate which made golf carts, snowmobiles and Cessna aircraft. But when all was said and done, the Volcker Fed still pumped new money into the economy at a rate barely below that of Arthur Burns. And Burns, of course, was the villain central banker who had ignominiously succumbed to Nixon’s entreaties to “give me money, Arthur” in support of his re-election campaign in 1972.

*  *  *

The amount of money the US government spends on foreign aid, wars, the so-called intelligence community, and other aspects of foreign policy is enormous and ever-growing. It’s an established trend in motion that is accelerating, and now approaching a breaking point. It could cause the most significant disaster since the 1930s. Most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it now.

After battering Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula and leaving a trail of destruction through the Caribbean that may exceed $5 billion in damages, Beryl, currently a tropical storm, has moved back into warm waters and is expected to restrengthen into hurricane status with landfall impacts expected across northern Mexico or southern Texas on early Monday. 

AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Tyler Roys told Bloomberg that Beryl will make landfall around northern Mexico or southern Texas as a Category 1 hurricane between 0400 and 0600 local time Monday. 

Computer models show Beryl’s forecasted track has been shifting slightly north in recent days, which may allow the storm to stay in warmer Gulf waters longer.

“It would not shock me if there is further intensification,” Roys said, adding, “Right now we are with Category 1, but if the trend continues and the track sneaks a little further north, there could potentially be more funny business going on with intensification. It is something we are watching.”

Roys said Beryl will likely bring heavy rains across eastern Texas, an area swamped with rain this year. This will elevate flood risks across the region early next week. 

Another major danger is the storm’s threat to oil and gas leases in the US Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico and energy infrastructure on shore and inland. 

Beryl’s threat to oil/gas infrastructure (list courtesy of Bloomberg): 

• Tropical Storm Beryl’s threat to oil and gas leases in the US Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico increases as its path shifts north after reaching Yucatan, according to National Hurricane Center data and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management data

• Storm could be in path of leases with ~14 million cu. feet/d of natural gas production and ~1,583 b/d of oil and condensate output versus ~6.8 million cu. feet/d of offshore gas output on Thursday.

• Storm’s potential path doesn’t pass over any major offshore oil or gas platforms, but is near some

• Projection is based on Feb. BOEM production data broken down by lease and platforms within projected cone of storm

• Projections are for location of Beryl through weekend and into next week

Beryl threatens some major offshore oil/gas platforms: 

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the acting governor while Gov. Greg Abbott traveled overseas, issued a pre-emptive disaster declaration for 40 counties.

“Everyone along the (Texas) coast should be paying attention this storm,” Patrick said, adding, “We hope and we pray for nothing more than a rain event.”

Last week, Beryl was the earliest storm on record to strengthen into a Category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic.