Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Newly-released documents reveal an alleged alliance between Planned Parenthood and the University of California–San Diego to profit from the “harvesting and sale” of aborted human fetuses for research patents.

“This new evidence shows Planned Parenthood sells late-term aborted baby body parts in violation of federal law, for far more money than has ever been discussed before,” said David Daleiden, founder and president of California-based Center for Medical Progress, which filed the public records request, in a statement earlier this month. “Planned Parenthood’s national headquarters knew about and approved these sales of aborted babies for valuable consideration as part of government-funded research grants.”

The documents show Planned Parenthood transferring aborted fetal body parts to the University of California–San Diego (UCSD) explicitly for “valuable consideration” in exchange for ownership of the university’s patents and intellectual property developed experimenting with them.

Details of the alleged deal are spelled out in a redacted “Biological Materials Transfer Agreement” that grants UCSD “access” to “fetal and placental tissue,” that are the “proprietary materials” of Planned Parenthood San Diego. In return, the deal allows the nonprofit rights to “patents” and “intellectual property” developed through experiments with the “material.”

The contract, signed in 2009, was updated to reflect the nonprofit’s name change to “Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest” in 2014, with the parties specifying the terms and conditions of the original contract remained in full force and effect.

UCSD emails from 2017 refer to the contract while updating an additional contract for clinical personnel, and in emails from late 2020, the university seeks to be “especially careful” about “any rights” providers of fetal tissue “retain” in the “material.”

Despite federal laws prohibiting the exchange of aborted human fetal tissue for “valuable consideration,” the university used the fetal tissue for research leading to patents, according to Mr. Daleiden’s statement.

The University of California system generated more than $127 million in revenue for all patent inventions during the 2021-22 academic year, Mr. Daleiden claims in his statement.

Violation of such federal laws are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $500,000, according to the Center for Medical Progress.

Email threads between Planned Parenthood and UCSD also reveal plans for collaborative research meetings. In one thread, Planned Parenthood emailed UCSD to set up a quarterly meeting and agrees to discuss “payment” to its abortion training initiatives within the framework of its fetal tissue research partnership.

UCSD writes that as part of a meeting, “we will have results to share on samples recently collected, and will also likely have more to discuss re: the [REDACTED] fellowship.” Planned Parenthood replies there are “[n]o current issues with the collection program,” but they “have some questions about payment to the residency program.”

The collaboration involved Planned Parenthood’s training programs at UCSD and other taxpayer-funded universities where they allegedly supply fetal tissues for research purposes.

Documents also show UC San Diego donated $10,000 to Planned Parenthood’s national research department at a 2021 fundraiser and a registration form for “the fetal body parts harvesting in San Diego,” according to the center.

In 2015, Mr. Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress released an undercover video series showing Planned Parenthood executives negotiating the costs of fetal tissue from the alleged “harvesting and sale of aborted fetal body parts” and discussing modifications to abortion procedures to secure more intact organs. The videos exposed an aborted baby organ market between abortion clinics and research facilities.

The exposé revealed various for-profit companies sent tech workers into Planned Parenthood abortion clinics to harvest the organs of aborted babies and then package them for resale to research facilities.

Last year, the center reported on records, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, confirming a federal investigation by the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General of the National Institute of Health’s funded fetal tissue bank at the University of Pittsburgh, which is allegedly supplied by Planned Parenthood abortion doctors, according to Mr. Daleiden’s statement.

Mr. Daleiden has urged federal investigators to widen the probe to include Planned Parenthood’s activities in San Diego “and every other location where this $1.8 billion abortion business supplies aborted babies for taxpayer-funded experiments,” and accused the organization’s leaders of participating in the “government-sponsored trafficking of late-term aborted babies.”

The Center for Medical Progress also released a video about its most recent public records findings. Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, a faith-based advocacy organization that promotes traditional family values, said in a March 18 statement that the agreement between Planned Parenthood and UC San Diego treated “innocent, vulnerable human beings just like animals.”

“Every human life is sacred from conception, and selling unborn baby parts for research is morally abhorrent,” Mr. Burt said. “This deeply revolting news reaffirms the need to pressure politicians to implement life-affirming policies and demand the laws against these crimes be enforced.”

Educational institutions and the scientific community “shouldn’t get a pass when they violate human dignity,” he said.

Planned Parenthood did not respond to requests for comment about the allegations.

The most expensive drug in the U.S. is now Lenmeldy, a $4.25 million gene therapy the FDA approved March 18 for children with a rare genetic disease, Becker Hospital Review reports.

Metachromatic leukodystrophy manifests into the loss of motor and cognitive function, and early death, according to the FDA. The first and only one-time medicine for patients is Lenmeldy (atidarsagene autotemcel). Its manufacturer, Orchard Therapeutics, said the drug’s wholesale acquisition cost is $4.25 million. 

In a March 20 news release, Orchard said the price tag “is reflective of the value the therapy may deliver to eligible patients and their families, as well the potential long-term impact [the] treatment may have on overall healthcare utilization, minimization of productivity loss for caregivers and life opportunities for patients.”

In a trial, 37 children received Lenmeldy and experienced a significant reduction in the risk of severe motor impairment and death compared to untreated children. At 5 years old, 71% of treated children could walk without assistance. All study participants who had pre-symptomatic late infantile MLD were alive at 6 years old, compared to 58% of children in the control group. 

Before its approval, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said the drug would be cost effective if priced between $2.3 million and $3.9 million. 

Other chart-topping medications include Hemgenix, a $3.5 million hemophilia B therapy; Elevidys, a $3.2 million muscular dystrophy drug; and Skysona, a $3 million medicine for adrenoleukodystrophy, according to CNN. 

Today is a historic day, as last night – DB’s Jim Reid reminds us – we quietly passed the longest continuous US 2s10s inversion in history. After the 2s10s first inverted at the end of March 2022, it has now been continuously inverted for 625 days since July 5th 2022. That exceeds the 624 day inversion from August 1978, which previously held the record.

As regular readers are aware, an inverted yield curve has been the best predictor of a US downturn of any variable through history: the yield curve has always inverted before all of the last 10 US recessions, with a lag that is usually 12-18 months, but some cycles – certainly this one – take longer…. much longer.

In fact, the lack of a recession so far has prompted Red to ask – in his latest Chart of the Day note – if the inverted yield curve recession indicator has failed this cycle?

“Possibly”, the DB strategist responds, “but in many ways the yield curve has already accurately predicted many of the drivers that would normally lead to a recession. However, these variables haven’t then created recessionary conditions as they normally would have done.” He explains:

It led, as it always does, the very sharp deterioration in bank lending standards, and led the declines in bank credit and money supply that are almost unique to this cycle. It was also at the heart of why we had some of the largest bank failures on record with SVB, Signature Bank and First Republic collapsing. A significant part of their failure was a big carry trade that went wrong when the curve inverted.

However, even with the above, a recession – according to the highly political “recession authority” known as the NBER – hasn’t materialised. This is perhaps because of the following.

• When lending standards were at their tightest, the borrowing needs of the economy were low relative to previous cycles.
• Excess savings have been unusually high in this cycle (and were revised higher with the GDP revisions last September), so consumers haven’t been as exposed to tight credit as they normally are.
• The Fed unveiled a huge series of measures to ensure the regional bank crisis didn’t naturally unravel as it would have done in a free market or perhaps in many previous cycles.
• Whilst the Fed’s tightening has been reducing demand, the supply-side of the economy has bounced back strongly from the pandemic disruption, which has further supported growth and made this cycle unique.

So far so good, however, an inverted yield curve should ultimately be a significant headwind for an economy, as capitalism works best when there is a positive return for taking more risk with lending and investments further out the curve. As such, Reid notes, “the rational investor should be prepared to keep more of their money at the front end, or not lend long-term when the curve is inverted” as you are not giving up yield for being able to sleep at night.

So thanks to a historic flood of fiscal stimulus and a daily orgy of new record debt as discussed earlier…

… which means that the US is now running a 6.5% deficit with unemployment near “historical lows”, an unheard of event….

… the economy has not succumbed to the inverted yield curve to date, but while it remains inverted the Fed is encouraging more defensive behavior at some point if sentiment changes. As such, the DB strategist concludes that “the quicker we get back to a normal sloping yield curve the safer the system is.”

Authored by Richard Benedetto via RealClear Wire,

The time has come for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to pack his bags and shuffle back home to Brooklyn.

The New York Democrat has been around politics way too long. Aside from being a politician, he’s never held a real job since graduating from Harvard Law School nearly a half-century ago. And as they say about washed-up pitchers in baseball: He seems to have lost his fastball.

But like many a career politician, Schumer, 73, is the last to realize it. He clearly showed last week that he is losing his stuff when he recklessly overstepped his bounds and publicly called on duly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, embroiled in a war with Hamas, to step down and hold new elections.

“At this critical juncture, I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel at a time when so many Israelis have lost confidence on the vision and direction of their government,” said Schumer, who is Jewish.

That’s like a leader in the Knesset, Israel’s top legislative body, calling on President Biden to quit. Such a bold order would be greeted here in the U.S. with laughter and scorn. Israelis, who view America as its moral and stalwart protector from those intent on destroying the Jewish state, were disconcerted – and appalled at the implications of Schumer’s implied threats. An obviously miffed Netanyahu called the Senate leader’s remarks “wholly inappropriate.”

“We’re not a banana republic,” the Israeli prime minister said. “The people of Israel will choose when they’ll have elections, who they will elect and it’s not something that will be forced upon us.” 

However, such brash and intrusive declarations by Schumer came as no surprise to many veteran political reporters and analysts in Washington. Schumer has been loudly and aggressively throwing his political weight around for nearly half a century – basking in the media spotlight that went along with it, and clearly loving it. An old joke among news reporters covering Congress is that the most dangerous place to stand on Capitol Hill is between Chuck Schumer and a television camera.

Aside from politics, Schumer has never held a real job as an adult. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1974, his biography is basically a political rap sheet.

While still in law school, he ran for a seat in the New York State Assembly and represented a heavily Democratic district in Brooklyn from 1974 to 1980. When one of Brookyn’s seats in Congress opened, Schumer quickly jumped into the fray. He won election in that heavily Democratic district and served in the House until 1999.

After 18 years in the House, Schumer, by now a career politician, decided to climb even higher on the legislative ladder. In 1998, he challenged three-term incumbent New York Republican Sen. Al D’Amato and won in a bitterly contested statewide race. Schumer has been in the Senate ever since – nearly 25 years – winning reelection four more times.

Way back in 1975, when Schumer was a rookie in the New York State Assembly, he quickly won a reputation among Albany reporters as a guy who never shuts up. He would leap to his feet and express his views on the most mundane of bills, causing news reporters in the chamber to audibly groan, “Oh no, Schumer again!”

Nearly a half-century later, little has changed. It’s time to give that tired act a rest.

Richard Benedetto is a retired USA Today White House correspondent and columnist. He covered New York State government and politics in Albany for Gannett News Service, 1976-82. He has taught political science and journalism at American University and in The Fund For American Studies programs at Georgetown and George Mason Universities for the past 17 years.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Virginia man who went inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, for several minutes was convicted on March 20 on four counts and faces jail time.

Raymond Chambers entered the Capitol at 3:01 p.m., according to the government, which offered surveillance footage. Once inside, Mr. Chambers walked to the Rotunda and took some photographs. He “immediately exited the building” through the Rotunda doors at 3:04 p.m., prosecutors said.

Mr. Chambers was not accused of carrying out any violence, but authorities said he violated federal law, including a law that bars engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building that disrupts government business.

Mr. Chambers was charged with entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building or grounds, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. He pleaded not guilty.

A jury this week convicted Mr. Chambers on all counts, following a trial.

Mr. Chambers now faces up to three years in prison as well as fines.

An attorney representing Mr. Chambers declined to comment ahead of sentencing, which is scheduled for June 24. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed under President Donald Trump, will sentence Mr. Chambers.

Mr. Chambers did not return an inquiry.

Three Others Convicted

Three other men were convicted in a stipulated bench trial.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, appointed under President Barack Obama, found Patrick Montgomery of Colorado and Brady Knowlton of Utah guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding. That count carries up to 20 years in prison but may end up being struck by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The judge also convicted Mr. Montgomery of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and Mr. Knowlton of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds.

Gary Wilson, also of Utah, was convicted of theft of government property.

Judge Moss is slated to sentence the trio on July 2.

“We are obviously disappointed in the outcome. This was an unusual case because Mr. Knowlton used no force or violence against anyone including any police officers. He entered the Capitol through a door held open for him and others by Capitol Police officers and peacefully left after being inside for only 18 minutes,” Brent Mayr, a lawyer representing Mr. Knowlton, told The Epoch Times via email. “While the Judge said this was a ‘close case,’ we shouldn’t convict any citizen in close cases. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is reviewing this ambiguous law that he was convicted of and we’re hopeful the court is going to find this law to either not apply here or be invalid on its face.”

According to stipulated facts entered in the case, the three men on Jan. 6, 2021, went to the Capitol after the “stop the steal” rally. While there, Mr. Montgomery tried taking a baton from a law enforcement officer, at one point kicking the officer in the chest. The men then entered the Capitol at 2:35 p.m. and made their way to the Rotunda.

The men later went to a hallway outside the Senate floor, where Mr. Wilson took a black bag, and all three confronted a U.S. Capitol Police Officer. Mr. Montgomery was quoted as saying: “You gotta stop doing your job sometime and start being American. You gotta quit doing your job and be an American!” Mr. Wilson was quoted as saying, “We came all the way from our job to do your job, and the freaking Senators’ job!”

The men left the Capitol at 2:53 p.m.

“Mr. Montgomery and his codefendants had many viable defenses which might have resulted in acquittal in any other jurisdiction. But the D.C. jury pool is so extremely pro-government that no January 6 defendant has an opportunity for a fair jury trial. It really is a national disgrace that so many January 6 defendants are having their lives destroyed in D.C. courts. Mr. Montgomery and codefendants opted for a stipulated bench trial because the jury pool in D.C. is so fundamentally hostile to January 6ers. These cases would all end in acquittals elsewhere,” Roger Roots, a lawyer representing Mr. Montgomery, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Update on Numbers

Despite years elapsing since the Capitol breach, new arrests are still being made.

Some 93 people were arrested and charged in early 2024, after a months-long pause in 2023. More than 1,358 individuals have been charged as of March 6, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

According to one estimate, 445 new cases could hit the docket in 2024—more than in 2022 and 2023.

One of the latest arrests was of a California woman who worked for Congress following the breach. Isabella DeLuca was arrested on several charges, including theft of government property.

Court documents say Ms. DeLuca helped pass furniture, including a table, from inside the Capitol to outside the building. She faces up to four years in prison if convicted.

“I am facing the unwarranted targeting and persecution by the DOJ and FBI at the direction of the Biden Administration, like most J6ers,” Ms. DeLuca wrote on X, formerly Twitter. She added later, “Whatever comes my way, though it may be difficult, I am prepared to face it.”

Approximately 769 defendants have pleaded guilty. In addition to more than 150 being found guilty at trials, several dozen have been convicted after the parties agreed upon a set of facts.

Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Wire,

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro announced last week to the more than 15 million monthly listeners of his eponymous podcast that he wouldn’t just vote for Donald Trump, he would also co-host a fundraiser for the former president.

Because the choices for president are identical to 2020, Shapiro said he would “walk over broken glass” to support Trump. Almost immediately, he had an opportunity. Trump said Monday that “any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion,” comments that the White House quickly condemned as “vile and unhinged antisemitic rhetoric.”

Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew and outspoken ally of Israel, provided a quick defense. Far from antisemitic, he said Trump was “making a point which I have made myself, which is that Jews who are voting Democrat do not understand the Democratic Party at this point.” The left in Congress, he continued, was “split at best between moderates on Israel and radicals who hate Israel.”

For Trump, the rebuttal was welcome, especially given that it came from a pundit once described as the voice of the conservative millennial movement. The endorsement itself, however, was not surprising. Shapiro publicly backed Trump four years ago. The significance is instead the pundit’s willingness to help bind the wounds opened by the Republican primary.

According to an invite obtained by RealClearPolitics, Shapiro will co-host the fundraiser along with Tina Vidal-Duart, Carlos Duart, and Rick Green, each of whom previously sat on the national finance committee of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ doomed presidential campaign.

The Trump campaign will host the fundraiser at the Trump National Doral Miami Golf Club. Tickets cost $23,200 per person. A luncheon and “photo opportunity with President Donald J. Trump” will follow per the invite.

Beset by a myriad of legal trouble, including a $464 million bond in a civil fraud case, Trump needs the money. He also needs to achieve something approaching his boast that the GOP has never been “so unified as it is right now.”

Enter Shapiro who provides an avatar for DeSantis supporters coming to peace with Trump.

He has been critical of Trump’s personal vices, occasionally splitting with the former president on policy and notably calling Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 election “deeply irresponsible.” During the primary, Shapiro frequently boosted DeSantis, criticizing Trump’s decision to run “ever to the left” rather than debate the governor on more conservative grounds.

But that fight is now long over, Shapiro said as he explained his rationale.

“As you know, I didn’t support Trump in the primaries because I don’t endorse candidates in Republican primaries. But I do tell you who I would have voted for. And I told you I would have voted for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida if given the choice,” he said on his show last Friday.

“But Ron DeSantis isn’t the nominee. Donald Trump is the nominee. And he’s facing Joe Biden, who is the worst president of my lifetime,” he continued.

“My calculus is simple,” Shapiro concluded. “America was better off under Donald Trump than it is under Joe Biden.”

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has granted former President Donald Trump’s request for a certificate of immediate review, allowing the former president and seven co-defendants to appeal the judge’s order denying the disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

The certificate of immediate review, filed on March 20 at the Superior Court of Fulton County in Georgia, allows President Trump and seven co-defendants to seek an appeal from the Georgia Court of Appeals, which has the discretion to accept or decline to hear the case.

“Judge McAfee has issued a certificate of immediate review allowing us to take our motion to disqualify Fani Willis directly to the Georgia Court of Appeals,” David Shafer, former chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and one of the seven co-defendants, said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, commenting on the judge’s decision.

Besides Mr. Shafer, the co-defendants who can appeal the judge’s disqualification ruling are Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Robert Cheeley, Michael Roman, Harrison Floyd, and Cathleen Latham.

All of them had joined the initial motion to disqualify Ms. Willis and later joined the motion for a certificate of immediate review.

The request for immediate review, filed on March 18 by Steve Sadow, attorney to President Trump, stems from Judge McAfee’s decision to allow Ms. Willis to remain on the high-profile case, in which the former president is accused of election interference.

President Trump has denied wrongdoing and has called the case a politically motivated “witch hunt” meant to undermine his 2024 comeback bid for the White House.

Ms. Willis was accused of engaging in an “improper” romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade and benefitting from it financially. The two acknowledged the relationship but denied any financial benefit or conflict of interest.

Judge McAfee said in a March 15 order that there was an appearance of impropriety but that no conflict of interest had been proven.

He found that disqualifying Ms. Willis wouldn’t be the appropriate remedy to the appearance of impropriety and instead ordered Mr. Wade off the case.

Mr. Wade resigned hours after the morning order was issued.

More Details

In earlier testimony, Mr. Wade had acknowledged a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis but testified that it had ended before the election case indictment was handed up.

Judge McAfee noted that Mr. Wade’s inconsistent answers under oath in his recent divorce case showed a willingness to “conceal” his relationship with Ms. Willis, and he opined that an “odor of mendacity” lingered on the prosecution team with Ms. Willis’s and Mr. Wade’s testimonies in his court.

Given the seriousness of the appearance issue as described by the judge, the defendants argued that the removal of Mr. Wade wasn’t sufficient.

Judge McAfee had a 10-day window to decide whether he would allow a review of his disqualification decision.

Allowing review could technically halt pretrial proceedings for up to 45 days while an appeals court decides whether to take the case.

However, in his March 20 certificate of immediate review, Judge McAfee said that the court intends “to continue addressing the many other unrelated pending pretrial motions, regardless of whether the petition is granted within 45 days of filing, and even if any subsequent appeal is expedited by the appellate court.”

The case still has 15 defendants (four have accepted plea bargains) and is expected to run for about six months.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Biden-nominated candidate for a judicial seat couldn’t define the term “assault weapon” during a confirmation hearing on March 20, even though she once signed a brief defending a ban on “assault weapons.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Maldonado of the Northern District of Illinois to define “assault weapons” during Wednesday’s nomination hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

In posing the question, Mr. Kennedy cited a legal brief that Judge Maldonado signed years ago.

“You said, ‘assault weapons may be banned because they’re extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes,’” Mr. Kennedy said. “Tell me what you meant by assault weapons.”

Judge Maldonado, who has been nominated by President Joe Biden for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, struggled to reply to the question.

“I did not write the brief,” she said, prompting the Republican senator to point out that she signed the brief and asked her whether in so doing she was “testifying to the court that everything in it is true.”

“Yes,” she replied.

“So they’re your words in terms of the court, right?” he asked.

“You’re correct, Senator Kennedy,” prompting him to ask again what she meant by “assault weapons.”

“I am not a gun expert,” Judge Maldonado then said, with Mr. Kennedy pressing the issue, asking her to “just tell me what you wanted to ban.”

“I don’t remember the exact definition of ‘assault weapons’ in the ordinance that was at issue,” she said, before adding that she signed off on the brief but “was not responsible for researching the content.”

WATCH:@SenJohnKennedy: “You said, ‘assault weapons may be banned because they’re extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes.’ Tell me what you meant by assault weapons?”

Biden’s Seventh Circuit judge nominee Nancy Maldonado: “I’m not… pic.twitter.com/1ctY2E64IO

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) March 20, 2024

‘Assault Weapons’ In Focus

In the exchange with Mr. Kennedy, Judge Maldonado acknowledged that she was “responsible” for the brief but insisted that she doesn’t remember its specific “characteristics” as they related to the ordinance on “assault weapons.”

Asked pointedly whether she thinks deserves to be promoted to the appeals court seat, she said, “Senator, I stand by my record.”

The label “assault weapons,” which has been variously defined in legislation, is a fuzzy term commonly used by gun control advocates to refer to many types of popular semi-automatic sporting rifles, in particular AR-15-style rifles.

Gun rights advocates have argued that the term “assault weapons” is ill-defined and of limited practical use in legislation, but is a dangerous-sounding term used to instill fear to build public support for gun restrictions on many modern sporting rifles (MSR).

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimated in 2022 that there were over 24 million MSRs in circulation in the United States, which include AR-15 and AK-style rifles.

The popularity of MSRs has been attributed to factors like accuracy, reliability, and recoil control.

“The firearm industry responds to market demand and this shows that during the elevated period of firearm sales that began in 2020, this particular style of rifle is the top choice for law-abiding citizens for hunting, recreational shooting and self-defense,” NSSF president and CEO Joe Bartozzi said in a statement at the time.

President Joe Biden has repeatedly used the term “assault weapon” in pushing gun curbs.

“I’m still committed to banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” he told a group of mayors at the White House in January.

“When we passed the Second Amendment, guess what: You weren’t allowed to have a cannon,” the president told the mayors, while urging them to get onboard his gun control proposals.

“You’ve heard ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’? Guess what, man. I didn’t see a whole lot of patriots out there walking around making sure that we have these weapons,“ he continued.

“If you really want to worry about the government, you need an F-16,” President Biden said. “You don’t need an AR-15.”

A Rand Corp. study completed in 2020 and updated in 2023 found limited evidence that “high capacity magazine” bans reduced mass shootings and inconclusive evidence on the effect of banning “assault weapons” on the incidents of mass shootings.

Judicial Nominations

Meanwhile, Judge Maldonado was on Wednesday grilled by Senate Republicans on issues other than “assault weapons,” including on how she amassed one of the largest case backlogs of any federal trial court judge nationally.

She replied by saying that when she joined the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in August 2022, she was immediately assigned around 300 cases with pending motions. Then, after three judges retired, her caseload swelled to 360, she said.

Judge Maldonado said she worked hard to get the caseload number down but the speed of clearing the backlog was constrained by what she said was her desire to make sure the decisions were “well-reasoned.”

Before joining the district court, Judge Maldonado was a partner at the law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where she focused on employment litigation.

The other judges nominated by President Biden—who has said his nominees would ensure U.S. courts reflect “diversity”—that were also part of Wednesday’s hearing were: Georgia N. Alexakis, Krissa Lanham, Angela Martinez, and Sparkle Sooknanan.

Michael Clements contributed to this report.

Submitted By Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman of DMCC in Dubai

It’s been a busy few weeks for both Bitcoin (BTC) fans and gold hawks, with both assets reaching record highs on the back of soaring inflation, market volatility and high rates, and while both assets typically attract quite polarising investors, their simultaneous rallies are united in their speculation that the U.S. and other western economies may not be able to maintain high interest rates, given their sky-high debts.

As stated by XTB research director Kathleen Brooks, “When gold and bitcoin rise in unison, it is worth interrogating the reasons behind this, in case they can give us clues about investor behaviour. Both seem to be rallying on the back of the overall market mood: U.S., Japanese and several European indices have made fresh record highs recently. However, for gold and bitcoin there are other internal factors at play that could be pushing up their value even when stocks take a breather.”

For gold, as the age-old investment hedge, a potential shift in Federal Reserve policy in conjunction with geopolitical uncertainty and a possible downturn in equity markets saw its price break through to $2,194.99 before rolling back. However, with U.S. inflation unexpectedly rising to 3.2 per cent in February, the yellow metal is well positioned to maintain or even exceed its recent highs until 20th March, when the Fed will announce its rate decision, with most economists anticipating no change. As outlined by Tim Murray at T Rowe Price, “This last mile of inflation – getting from 3 per cent to 2 per cent – is going to be really hard. Much harder than getting from 9 to 3 per cent.”

As a digital store of value, Bitcoin’s record-breaking rally to USD 73,794 on 14th March 2024 was further propelled by buoyant market confidence, as demonstrated through the $10bn poured into Bitcoin ETFs since the beginning of the year, and will likely continue its run through an imminent ‘halving’, which is currently on schedule to take place in April. As outlined by Bitfinex, “The recent surge in Bitcoin’s value… underscores the remarkable strength and resilience of the leading cryptocurrency. This achievement not only marks a significant milestone but also reflects the continued confidence and demand in the market”. 

With both assets illustrating a clear trend towards safe-haven investments and weakening fiat currencies, it is critical to ask the following questions:

• Are the record-breaking prices justified against the convergence of inflation and debt?
• What are the fundamental differences between BTC and gold?
• What are the underlying responses beyond consumer investment?
• And what could a return to a gold-backed economy mean for the geopolitical landscape?

Are record highs justified?

Asking the obvious question, as headlined by City Index, “Are Traders Afraid of Sovereign Debt Loads?” In short, yes, and for good reason. While many traders are simply seeking a short-term alternative to hedge risk, there is undoubtedly a longer-term appetite for what happens if the U.S. and other developed economies are unable to maintain high interest rates, given their existing debt loads. Starting with the most glaring information, U.S. national debt is currently on the rise to the tune of $1 trillion roughly every 100 days, reaching a total of just over $34.4 trillion in February – a figure certainly not helped by wild printing under the current U.S. administration, which included $3 trillion in 2020 alone. Speculation as to whether a default occurs or not is yet another polarising debate. As stated by Lawrence J White, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business at NYU, no one knows because it is “a political issue”. However, as an investor hedging for a worst-case scenario, the default outcome would likely be “cataclysmic”, followed by a recession of the order of the financial crisis of 2008, according to Bernard Yaros, assistant director at Moody’s Analytics. Even a short-term breach could cause more seismic shifts in the international financial markets, fuelling credible calls for alternatives to the U.S. dollar. “The world will say we can’t rely on the U.S. Treasury as much as we used to, and that will make people more reluctant to hold Treasury obligations. Interest rates for Treasury bills and bonds will go up, and that will ultimately lead to a bigger tax burden for Americans”, stated White.

Sovereign Response

It’s no secret that central banks have been buying physical gold in record volumes over the past two years, as outlined by the World Gold Council in January: “Central bank demand, a key driver of gold in recent years, maintained its momentum in Q4 as a further 229t was added to global official gold reserves. This lifted annual (net) demand to 1,037t, just short of the record set in 2022 of 1,082t. Global official sector gold reserves are now estimated to total 36,700t. Two successive years of over 1,000t of buying is testament to the recent strength in central bank demand for gold. Central banks have been consistent net buyers on an annual basis since 2010, accumulating over 7,800t in that time, of which more than a quarter was bought in the last two years.”

However, this still seems to have evaded public sentiment, as outlined by Peter Schiff: “What’s unprecedented about gold’s new high is that there’s no fanfare, there isn’t any media coverage, there isn’t even any retail participation. Not only is the public not buying into this rally, they’ve been selling during the entire rally, in fact going into the gold ETFs, there’s been net outflows every week this year. The public keeps on selling as gold keeps rising. That’s not normal. Normally people buy on the way up, and sell on the way down, that’s wrong, but that’s human emotion. If everyone’s selling, how can the price of gold be going up? Because if the price of gold is going up it means somebody is buying to drive it up and if the public is dumping their gold why isn’t the price falling; well because somebody else is buying. Somebody who knows a lot more than the people who are selling. Who’s doing that buying? It’s central banks. There’s a reason they are doing it, and it’s because they are de-dollarising.” And they’re not alone.

As highlighted in JP Morgan’s August 2023 report, the U.S. dollar’s hegemony is “in question due to geopolitical and geostrategic shifts”, and this isn’t just the outlook of the central banks, but also commodity and emerging markets. With Russia serving as an example of the potential risks of being ‘frozen out’ of USDs, albeit with negligible effect, many other countries took heed. In contrast, others reacted to the unfavourable conditions of rising interest rates. “In short, de-dollarisation entails a significant reduction in the use of dollars in world trade and financial transactions, decreasing national, institutional and corporate demand for the greenback”, commented Alexander Wise, strategic research, J.P Morgan. To date, the U.S. dollar’s share of F.X. reserves has declined to a record low of 58 per cent. At the same time, several nations, most recently Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina, have started paying for imports and exports using the Chinese renminbi. In March, the Reserve Bank of India asked Gulf exporters to accept rupees for at least ten per cent of oil payments in the next financial year, while Russian news agency TASS said that the five-nation BRICS group will work on creating a payment system based on blockchain and digital technologies. In the Middle East, an MoU signed between the UAE and India in July 2023 signals the beginning of regional currency usage for bilateral transactions within a framework called the Local Currency Settlement (LCS) system. As a symbolic transaction on the same day, a UAE gold exporter sold 25 kgs of gold to an Indian buyer, invoicing the payment in Indian rupees.

BTC vs Gold

Based on the reality of Bitcoin and gold being the de-facto investment hedges, each investor has their own preference. As outlined by Fergus Hodgson, director of Econ Americas, roving editor of Gold Newsletter, “Gold has thousands of years of established history as a resolute store of value,” whereas, cryptocurrency, as a relative newcome to global asset markets means, “its future as a store of value is precarious. In my assessment, central bank digital currencies and altcoins will challenge Bitcoin’s value proposition as a medium of exchange.” Certainly, as a hedge, Bitcoin’s finite 21 million coins means it cannot be manipulated like fiat currencies. However, the same could be said for gold, albeit under the speculation of what resource remains unmined and what can be recycled. While previously, Bitcoin’s edge over gold was its accessibility, recent cases of fraud, theft and the rise of ETFs have made both assets safer and more accessible to all forms of investors.

While I am certainly not against cryptocurrencies, particularly in their capacity to support decentralised trade, all markets tend to follow power. Through that lens, it is simple to compare which nations hold Bitcoin and which hold gold. According to Elementus, a blockchain-analysis firm, most of the world’s governmental Bitcoin holdings are from government seizures, and between 2013 – 2022, only six nations held a balance – the United States, El Salvador, Ukraine, Bhutan, Venezuela and Finland. Meanwhile, according to the World Gold Council’s Annual Futures (2021), only eight nations do not hold any gold reserves, namely Nicaragua, Cameroon, Armenia, Gabon, Turkmenistan, Congo, Chad and Eritrea.

Follow the Yellow BRICS Road

Putting all these elements together, we are left with a likely trend that will not only see a continued transition away from the U.S. dollar but towards a new collective powerhouse in the form of the BRICS+ nations. Complete with the world’s top two gold producers in China and Russia and four of the largest consumers, it seems that the balance of power is migrating east, with the trading bloc progressing towards its own version of a gold standard. As explained by Nathan Lewis in Forbes just several weeks ago, “The BRICS countries have settled on using gold as the basis for international exchange, a role previously taken by dollars and euros. This does not mean today’s floating fiat ruble, real, or rand is going anywhere soon. Rather, just as the U.S. dollar was used alongside those domestic currencies in the past, today and in the future gold will be more commonly used. There would not be very much trade in actual gold coins — just as there is not much trade in actual dollar bills. Indeed, gold doesn’t work very well for this hand-to-hand exchange at all, since even small coins tend to be of very high denomination, worth $200 or more. Rather, it means that people around the world will increasingly use various vehicles — such as bank accounts, bonds, loans, and cryptocurrencies — denominated in gold, just as they use the very same set of tools today but denominated in dollars.”

A Globally Inclusive Future

If all that is stated up till now is a fair projection of what’s to come, other areas of demand will either need to be met or serve a useful purpose in the new economic landscape. For example, there are three major bullion banks with London at their centre. As a city with no closer tie to gold than its historical position as a centre for trade, a more equitable solution could be found in the form of a Global Gold Market Association, akin to the Kimberley Process with a rolling chairmanship that provides access to an exchange where vetted banks are among the liquidity providers, thereby supporting a free market model. As an outcome, global volatility could be reduced through democratic processes and regulations, resulting in greater trading stability and a fairer marketplace for all nations, regardless of economic status.

Conclusion

As summarised by Peter Schiff, “Everybody is writing gold’s obituary – it’s not dead, it’s alive and well, it’s over $2,000, but the most important thing is the fundamentals have never been better. Not only do the charts look great for gold, but the fundamentals are fantastic because we’re in a situation where inflation has just bottomed at about three per cent and is now headed higher, and there’s nothing the Fed can do about it. It is out of ammo, it can’t fight, there is no way the Fed is going to hike rates, it would crash the economy, and it would sink any chance Biden has of getting re-elected. So, it’s going to dismiss any increase in inflation; in fact, it’s already done that this week. It’s almost like it’s back on its transitory kick, only nobody is going to use the word transitory, but they’re basically looking at any hotter-than-expected inflation data as if it’s a one-off thing as if it’s a foregone conclusion that inflation is going back down to two per cent when there’s no reason to expect that that’s going to happen. Not with record high budget deficits, record high consumer borrowing and spending; a weakening in industrial production, money supply is now growing, and real interest rates are falling. So, all signs point to higher inflation and a weaker economy, and that’s the perfect environment for gold. It is stagflation, and as investors lose confidence in the Fed, they’re going to look for a real safe haven, a real store of value, and they’re going to buy gold.”

I, for one, agree. Driven by non-transitory inflation, massive deficit spending, questionable global economies, and an increasing momentum towards de-dollarisation, is it finally time to revisit Bretton Woods, and or any meaningful gold standard as the potential antidote to what will soon become an uncontrollable problem

The examples of the ESG fraud imploding over the last 6 months simply aren’t stopping.

The latest has come from Texas, where the state is now terminating an $8.5 billion investment with BlackRock due to the investment manager’s boycott of energy companies, according to a report from Fox News. 

Texas State Board of Education Chairman Aaron Kinsey said this week that the Texas Permanent School Fund notified BlackRock this week that it would be terminating the investment. 

Kinsey told Fox News this week: “The Texas Permanent School Fund has a fiduciary duty to protect Texas schools by safeguarding and growing the approximately $1 billion in annual oil and gas royalties managed by the Texas General Land Office. Terminating BlackRock’s contract ensures PSF’s full compliance with Texas law.”

Kinsey added: “BlackRock’s dominant and persistent leadership in the ESG movement immeasurably damages our state’s oil & gas economy and the very companies that generate revenues for our PSF. Texas and the PSF have worked hard to grow this fund to build Texas’ schools.”

“BlackRock’s destructive approach toward the energy companies that this state and our world depend on is incompatible with our fiduciary duty to Texans,” he said. 

Texas has made a significant move by divesting a considerable portion of its $53 billion Permanent School Fund (PSF), originally established in the 19th century to support public education. This step marks the largest divestment since GOP-led states began cutting financial relations with BlackRock and similar firms over their adoption of ESG standards. 

In response to such opposition, Texas enacted Senate Bill 13 in 2021, mandating the state’s comptroller to identify and list financial entities boycotting fossil fuel businesses. Following this, Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar updated this list in October to include BlackRock among others, urging the Texas PSF and five state pension funds to cut off from the investment company.

Kinsey concluded: “Today represents a major step forward for the Texas PSF and our state as a whole. The PSF will not stand idle as our financial future is attacked by Wall Street. This bold action helps ensure our PSF remains in fact permanent and will continue to support bright futures and opportunities for generations of Texas students.”

Blackrock responded: “Today’s unilateral and arbitrary decision by Board of Education Chair Aaron Kinsey jeopardizes Texas schools and the families who have benefited from BlackRock’s consistent long-term outperformance for the Texas Permanent School Fund.” 

“The decision ignores our $120 billion investment in Texas public energy companies and defies expert advice. As a fiduciary, politics should never outweigh performance, especially for taxpayers,” they added. 

But Derek Kreifels, the CEO of the State Financial Officers Foundation, felt differently, offering support for the termination: “Today’s bold step by Aaron Kinsey and the Permanent School Fund of Texas, in accordance with state law, is a massive blow against the scam of ESG.”

“Under Larry Fink’s leadership, BlackRock has been misusing client funds to push a political agenda for years. Nowhere was that more egregious than in Texas, where BlackRock was simultaneously trying to destroy the domestic oil and gas industry while managing funds that depended on royalties derived from that very same industry,” added Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research.

He said it was a “clear message” to “Wall Street elites that people can no longer be bullied into complying with ESG’s destructive ideology.”