Authored by Mark Serrano via RealClear Wire,

The mainstream media and political establishment are outraged over Donald Trump’s latest comments about NATO. Instead of all the dramatic pearl-clutching, they should be embracing his position.

Trump recently issued a stern warning to America’s NATO allies, specifically those who are still failing to uphold their commitment to spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. Recounting a conversation he had with the leader of a delinquent NATO member who sought reassurance that America would defend their country from Russian attack, Trump declared that he would let Russia do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that refuse to make minimum expenditures toward their own defense.

This isn’t a new concept, and it’s not nearly as “shocking” as the media and political elites want you to think it is.

For the past 70 years, NATO has maintained a baseline defense spending guideline that is understood and formally agreed to by all 31 member states. In 2014, the alliance members agreed to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense by 2024. This makes perfect sense. What good is an alliance if one or more parties to the agreement let their military capabilities atrophy to the point where they can’t render meaningful aid in an emergency?

Sadly, only 18 out of 31 NATO members are currently meeting their defense spending obligation. The list of delinquents includes countries that should be among NATO’s leading militaries, such as France, Germany, Canada, Italy, and Turkey. Notably, almost all the countries that face a credible threat from Russia – such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Finland – are already spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense.

American politicians, primarily on the Republican side, have been pointing out for decades that European nations have been sheltering under the American defense umbrella for free and spending their savings to prop up massive welfare states. The only reason they could afford to do this is because the United States made clear that it would come to their aid without question or reservation if they were ever attacked.

Why buy the cow when you’re getting the milk for free?

Donald Trump holds the same view that has long been mainstream in conservative circles – our NATO allies should spend enough to maintain credible military deterrence, both to lessen the likelihood that they will need US aid, and to make them more effective partners in the event that the US requires their assistance.

Remember: Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an attack on one is an attack on all. We’re supposed to treat an attack on Warsaw or Paris like an attack on Washington, D.C., and vice versa. But as we saw the one and only time Article 5 was invoked – after the 9/11 attacks – most of our NATO allies are woefully unprepared to engage in any kind of military conflict.

The biggest problem is that they have little incentive to do otherwise. The U.S. Navy secures freedom of the seas all around the globe. The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides credible deterrence against hostile actors. The U.S. Air Force and Army are positioned in close proximity to all our allies to allow for rapid reaction to any emerging threat, anywhere in the world.

When Trump was president, he made significant progress toward getting our allies to meet their commitments. But they still have a long way to go.

One comparatively cheap way countries such as France and Germany could mollify American concerns, which has not been publicly discussed so far, is to start using their militaries to help America out.

Upon taking office in 2025, Donald Trump could invoke Article 5 in response to the ongoing invasion of illegal immigrants across our southern border. Countries who agree to send troops to help us police the border could buy themselves additional time to get their defense spending up to the 2 percent minimum, or perhaps even secure a permanent reprieve.

Deploying troops to help secure America’s southern border would send a powerful signal that NATO remains relevant in the 21st Century, and that our allies take their responsibilities to help with mutual defense seriously. Perhaps more importantly, it’s difficult to imagine a more effective way to get in President Trump’s good graces than to help him solve the illegal immigration problem, which has animated his policy platform from the moment he entered politics.

It certainly worked for Mexico. In his recent speeches, Trump has effusively praised the Mexican government for sending 28,000 troops to their own southern border to stop illegal immigrants from crossing into America through Mexico, saying he viewed that as Mexico’s way of paying for the border wall.

One way or the other, our delinquent NATO allies are going to have to put up or shut up. Trump’s odds of reclaiming the White House are growing by the day, and part of the reason for that is that voters support him taking a tough stance with “allies” who refuse to bear their share of the burden for mutual defense.

American taxpayers are tired of footing the bill for free riders. The only ones who should be concerned about Trump’s latest NATO comments are the European politicians who have refused to honor their commitments to the alliance.

Mark Serrano is the founder and president of ProActive Strategies and was a senior advisor for the 2020 Trump Campaign.

On Monday the government of France said several of its agencies were hit by ‘intense’ cyberattacks. “Many ministerial services were targeted” from Sunday “using familiar technical means but of unprecedented intensity,” Prime Minister Gabriel Attal’s office said.

The PM’s staff announced that a “crisis cell has been activated to deploy countermeasures”, meaning “the impact of these attacks has been reduced for most services and access to state websites restored.” The statement didn’t directly accuse Russia, but officials have implied it. It comes after Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu last month said that protection against “sabotage and cyberattack” by Russia should be a top priority.

While little in the way of specific details were initially given as to the targets of Monday’s intrusions, the attacks come days after newly appointed French Minister Delegate for Europe Jean-Noël Barrot charged that Russia is ramping up its cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns targeting Europe.

“We’ve been seeing over the past few months aggressivity towards European countries through cyberattacks, through disinformation, misinformation campaigns,” Barrot said of the Kremlin in a Friday interview with state-run France24.

“And this suggests that we need in Europe to display unity and strength and send this signal to Vladimir Putin that we will support Ukraine whatever it takes, and that we will stand alongside the Ukrainian resistance,” Barrot continued. He said this soon after French President Emmanuel Macron floated the possibility of sending Western troops to Ukraine, which has unleashed immense controversy even within NATO alliance countries.

This past weekend saw one of the largest cyber attacks ever launched against the Baltic state of Estonia, which has also been an outspoken supporter of Ukraine.

Regional media pointed to pro-Kremlin hackers for a devastating DDoS attack:

Over the weekend, the websites of numerous Estonian government institutions were targeted by the largest wave of DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks in the country’s history. The attacks, claimed by pro-Kremlin hackers, were reported by the Postimees newspaper on Monday.

“Thanks to the quick actions taken, the impact of the attack on the functioning of institutions was not significant,” the newspaper emphasized.

Dozens of public sector websites were reportedly targeted Saturday and Sunday, including sites for the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board (PPA), the tax and customs board, and the Ministry of Justice. 

Just days ago…

🚨 BREAKING: MICROSOFT HACKED BY RUSSIA

Russian state-backed hackers reportedly breached Microsoft’s core software systems, accessing source code repositories and internal systems.

Source: CNN pic.twitter.com/kkgstHAHU9

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 8, 2024

“Pro-Kremlin hacker groups have been primarily claiming responsibility for the attacks, as was the case last weekend,” said the Estonian agency. Ukraine itself has also long been directly subject of Russian cyber warfare, however, NATO countries have assisted Kiev and have been largely successful in defending the country’s information systems.

Authored by Tareq Sikder via FinanceMagnates.com,

• Complaints include inadequate information disclosure, data collection from minors, and inability to withdraw consent.

• Tools for Humanity Corporation, based in Germany with its European presence, is subject to GDPR legal consequences.

The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) has taken decisive action against Tools for Humanity Corporation, issuing a precautionary measure to halt the collection and processing of personal data within the framework of its Worldcoin project. The move comes in response to multiple complaints lodged against the company, citing concerns over inadequate information disclosure, the collection of data from minors, and the inability to withdraw consent, among other infringements.

Precautionary Measures against Tools for Humanity Corporation

The Worldcoin project, spearheaded by Tools for Humanity Corporation, has been under scrutiny for its handling of personal data within Spanish territory. The AEPD’s intervention underscores the gravity of the situation, particularly regarding the processing of biometric data, which falls under the purview of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) due to its sensitive nature.

According to the AEPD, the processing of biometric data poses significant risks to individuals’ rights, necessitating immediate action to safeguard personal data and prevent its potential transfer to third parties. The precautionary measure aims to block further data collection and processing by Tools for Humanity Corporation and secure the data already collected.

Urgency of AEPD Intervention to Safeguard Privacy Rights

Tools for Humanity Corporation, headquartered in Germany with its European establishment, faces legal consequences under the GDPR, allowing supervisory authorities like the AEPD to implement provisional measures in exceptional cases to safeguard individuals’ rights and freedom.

The AEPD emphasized the urgent need to intervene to prevent irreparable harm to individuals’ privacy rights. The temporary prohibition of data collection activities seeks to uphold the fundamental right to the protection of personal data, as enshrined in the GDPR.

Sam Altman’s Worldcoin Faces Roadblock In Spain, WLD Price Dips 12%

The Spanish data protection agency, AEPD, has ordered Worldcoin to stop gathering personal data within Spain.

Worldcoin, backed by Sam Altman, has encountered another setback concerning privacy breaches. The…

— Trading Kingdom (@_KingOfTrade_) March 6, 2024

The duration of the precautionary measure, not exceeding three months, underscores the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate corrective action by Tools for Humanity Corporation. Failure to comply with the AEPD’s directives may result in legal consequences for the company.

In the latest demonstration of a broad swing to the political right among the peoples of Europe, a tight parliamentary election in Portugal has ended with the Socialist Party conceding that its 8-year grip on power has ended. A center-right coalition emerged with a thin edge, while a populist, anti-immigration, tough-on-crime party emerged as a major force. 

With 99% of votes tallied, the center-right AD coalition had 79 seats to the Socialists’ 77. But the biggest storyline is the phenomenal surge by the populist Chega party, which is suddenly the third-largest in Portugal, despite having been founded less than five years ago. 

The AD party won a plurality, but not enough of the 230 total seats to create a new government on its own. Luis Montenegro, who leads the Social Democratic Party — the largest in the victorious AD coalition — has repeatedly promised he wouldn’t form a ruling coalition with Chega, whose positions he has characterized as “often xenophobic, racist, populist and excessively demagogic” He forcefully reiterated his stance after Sunday’s results were posted. “Of course I will keep my word,” said Montenegro. “I would never do such evil to myself, my party and my country as to not fulfill the commitments I made so clearly.”

On the other hand, citing the results, Chega leader Andre Ventura said his party has a rightful place in a new ruling coalition. “We are available to provide a stable government in Portugal,” he said. “AD asked for a majority. Today the Portuguese spoke out and said they want a two-party government from AD and Chega.” 

The Socialist Party could Montenegro box Chega out of the process, by abstaining from a parliamentary vote to form the next government, according to the Financial Times.  However, without Chega, Portugal may be left with a fragile minority government that will likely collapse much sooner than later. “Since Portugal became a democracy 50 years ago, only two minority governments have lasted a full term,” write Bloomberg‘s Joao Lima and Henrique Almeida.

Fittingly capturing the exasperation of its growing share of the voting public, Chega translates to “Enough.” The party has championed tighter rules on immigration, while also promising to slash taxes and boost pension payments. Portugal have been beset by low wages and soaring housing costs — the latter trend compounded by what Fortune called a “buying frenzy” among wealthy foreigners. Chega’s tough-on-crime rhetoric has included promoting chemical castration for certain sex offenders. 

Chega’s Ventura has also stressed the need to rid Portugal of Socialist corruption, a message that resonated all the more when Socialist Prime Minister Antonio Costa resigned in November amid an investigation of alleged influence-peddling relating to lithium and hydrogen concessions.

Congratulations for Chega poured in from similar parties across Europe, such as Alternative for Germany, Spain’s Vox, Hungary’s Fidesz and the Freedom Party of Austria. “The Portuguese are defending their identity and their prosperity, and sweeping away the corrupt socialists!” said Jordan Bardella, president of France’s National Rally Party. In January, former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro endorsed Ventura for the office of president. 

Portugal’s results have no doubt shaken Europe’s establishment, as they further evidence a growing, popular rejection of the leftist agenda. The June 6-9 European Union parliamentary elections could be very interesting… 

Authored by John Cody via ReMix News,

The new head of the Ukrainian army, Oleksandr Syrskyi, is known as “the butcher” by his own troops, and there are fears his aggressive style will lead to massive losses for Ukrainians in the east on top of already high casualties.

While President Zelensky claims that Ukraine has suffered only 31, 000 soldier deaths, most analysts, and those in Ukraine, know that number is far from reality. In fact, Ukraine’s ally, the United States, estimates that Ukraine had lost 70,000 men already last summer, on top of many more severely wounded or psychologically traumatized. The number of missing also remains high.

In a new interview with Politico, one soldier who wished to remain anonymous warned about the 58-year-old Syrskyi, saying: “He will kill us all.”

Politico reports that Ukrainian troops reportedly refer to the new commander of Ukraine’s ground forces as someone willing to put his troops in harm’s way to achieve his goals. Syrskyi, who was born in central Russia, is known for his “hard-driving Soviet-style” tactics.

He is filling in the shoes of the former commander of Ukraine, Valeriy Zalushny, who is still well-loved by the troops and who is said to have placed their safety as one of his top priorities. Zalushny had come under criticism for his public statements that he believed the war had reached a stalemate, which some analysts interpreted as a call for a ceasefire and a winding down of hostilities, which is in sharp contrast to Zelensky’s declared goals in the war of reclaiming lost territories.

Zelensky might also have other motives for prolonging the conflict, such as polls showing that he would outright lose the presidency to Zalushny if a fair vote were held. However, March national elections have been canceled, with the excuse that elections cannot be held while the war continues.

Syrskyi’s appointment also comes at a time when there is a sharp debate in Ukrainian society about large-scale mobilization efforts. Ukraine has already lost a significant amount of its population, both due to war and the emigration of the female population. Many of the men most willing to go to the front have long since enlisted or perished in battle, leaving a population of Ukrainians increasingly unwilling to take up arms.

One officer on X posted about Syrskyi’s appointment, saying, his leadership style “is bankrupt, his presence or orders coming from his name are demoralizing, and he undermines trust in the command in general. His relentless pursuit of tactical gains constantly depletes our valuable human resources, resulting in tactical advances such as capturing tree lines or small villages, with no operational goals in mind.”

Syrskyi reportedly gained his reputation as a “butcher” due to his willingness to hold the city of Bakhmut against Russian forces at nearly any cost, leading to high Ukrainian casualty rates. U.S. intelligence had long advised that Ukrainian forces should abandon the town, while Syrskyi kept sending more men into the war-torn city.

Zelensky said the city must be held at all costs, which put him at odds with the former General Zalushny, who advocated a withdrawal.

Ukraine reportedly lost a large number of well-trained troops in Bakhmut, while Russia lost large numbers of former convicts who conducted “human wave” assaults on the city.

Nevertheless, Syrskyi can boast some serious victories, including his pivotal defense of Kyiv along with the lightning blitz seen in Kharkiv that drove out Russian forces in the area.

Read more here…

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

“Beware the Ides of March,” Shakespeare quotes the soothsayer’s warning Julius Caesar about what turned out to be an impending assassination on March 15. The death of American liberty happened around the same time four years ago, when the orders went out from all levels of government to close all indoor and outdoor venues where people gather. 

It was not quite a law and it was never voted on by anyone. Seemingly out of nowhere, people who the public had largely ignored, the public health bureaucrats, all united to tell the executives in charge – mayors, governors, and the president – that the only way to deal with a respiratory virus was to scrap freedom and the Bill of Rights. 

And they did, not only in the US but all over the world. 

The forced closures in the US began on March 6 when the mayor of Austin, Texas, announced the shutdown of the technology and arts festival South by Southwest. Hundreds of thousands of contracts, of attendees and vendors, were instantly scrapped. The mayor said he was acting on the advice of his health experts and they in turn pointed to the CDC, which in turn pointed to the World Health Organization, which in turn pointed to member states and so on. 

There was no record of Covid in Austin, Texas, that day but they were sure they were doing their part to stop the spread. It was the first deployment of the “Zero Covid” strategy that became, for a time, official US policy, just as in China. 

It was never clear precisely who to blame or who would take responsibility, legal or otherwise. 

This Friday evening press conference in Austin was just the beginning. By the next Thursday evening, the lockdown mania reached a full crescendo. Donald Trump went on nationwide television to announce that everything was under control but that he was stopping all travel in and out of US borders, from Europe, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. American citizens would need to return by Monday or be stuck. 

Americans abroad panicked while spending on tickets home and crowded into international airports with waits up to 8 hours standing shoulder to shoulder. It was the first clear sign: there would be no consistency in the deployment of these edicts. 

There is no historical record of any American president ever issuing global travel restrictions like this without a declaration of war. Until then, and since the age of travel began, every American had taken it for granted that he could buy a ticket and board a plane. That was no longer possible. Very quickly it became even difficult to travel state to state, as most states eventually implemented a two-week quarantine rule. 

The next day, Friday March 13, Broadway closed and New York City began to empty out as any residents who could went to summer homes or out of state. 

On that day, the Trump administration declared the national emergency by invoking the Stafford Act which triggers new powers and resources to the Federal Emergency Management Administration. 

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document, only to be released to the public months later. The document initiated the lockdowns. It still does not exist on any government website.

The White House Coronavirus Response Task Force, led by the Vice President, will coordinate a whole-of-government approach, including governors, state and local officials, and members of Congress, to develop the best options for the safety, well-being, and health of the American people. HHS is the LFA [Lead Federal Agency] for coordinating the federal response to COVID-19.

Closures were guaranteed:

Recommend significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone. Consider school closures. Issue widespread ‘stay at home’ directives for public and private organizations, with nearly 100% telework for some, although critical public services and infrastructure may need to retain skeleton crews. Law enforcement could shift to focus more on crime prevention, as routine monitoring of storefronts could be important.

In this vision of turnkey totalitarian control of society, the vaccine was pre-approved: “Partner with pharmaceutical industry to produce anti-virals and vaccine.”

The National Security Council was put in charge of policy making. The CDC was just the marketing operation. That’s why it felt like martial law. Without using those words, that’s what was being declared. It even urged information management, with censorship strongly implied.

The timing here is fascinating. This document came out on a Friday. But according to every autobiographical account – from Mike Pence and Scott Gottlieb to Deborah Birx and Jared Kushner – the gathered team did not meet with Trump himself until the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Saturday and Sunday. 

According to their account, this was his first real encounter with the urge that he lock down the whole country. He reluctantly agreed to 15 days to flatten the curve. He announced this on Monday the 16th with the famous line: “All public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

This makes no sense. The decision had already been made and all enabling documents were already in circulation. 

There are only two possibilities. 

One: the Department of Homeland Security issued this March 13 HHS document without Trump’s knowledge or authority. That seems unlikely. 

Two: Kushner, Birx, Pence, and Gottlieb are lying. They decided on a story and they are sticking to it. 

Trump himself has never explained the timeline or precisely when he decided to greenlight the lockdowns. To this day, he avoids the issue beyond his constant claim that he doesn’t get enough credit for his handling of the pandemic.

With Nixon, the famous question was always what did he know and when did he know it? When it comes to Trump and insofar as concerns Covid lockdowns – unlike the fake allegations of collusion with Russia – we have no investigations. To this day, no one in the corporate media seems even slightly interested in why, how, or when human rights got abolished by bureaucratic edict. 

As part of the lockdowns, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was and is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as set up in 2018, broke the entire American labor force into essential and nonessential.

They also set up and enforced censorship protocols, which is why it seemed like so few objected. In addition, CISA was tasked with overseeing mail-in ballots. 

Only 8 days into the 15, Trump announced that he wanted to open the country by Easter, which was on April 12. His announcement on March 24 was treated as outrageous and irresponsible by the national press but keep in mind: Easter would already take us beyond the initial two-week lockdown. What seemed to be an opening was an extension of closing. 

This announcement by Trump encouraged Birx and Fauci to ask for an additional 30 days of lockdown, which Trump granted. Even on April 23, Trump told Georgia and Florida, which had made noises about reopening, that “It’s too soon.” He publicly fought with the governor of Georgia, who was first to open his state. 

Before the 15 days was over, Congress passed and the president signed the 880-page CARES Act, which authorized the distribution of $2 trillion to states, businesses, and individuals, thus guaranteeing that lockdowns would continue for the duration. 

There was never a stated exit plan beyond Birx’s public statements that she wanted zero cases of Covid in the country. That was never going to happen. It is very likely that the virus had already been circulating in the US and Canada from October 2019. A famous seroprevalence study by Jay Bhattacharya came out in May 2020 discerning that infections and immunity were already widespread in the California county they examined. 

What that implied was two crucial points: there was zero hope for the Zero Covid mission and this pandemic would end as they all did, through endemicity via exposure, not from a vaccine as such. That was certainly not the message that was being broadcast from Washington. The growing sense at the time was that we all had to sit tight and just wait for the inoculation on which pharmaceutical companies were working. 

By summer 2020, you recall what happened. A restless generation of kids fed up with this stay-at-home nonsense seized on the opportunity to protest racial injustice in the killing of George Floyd. Public health officials approved of these gatherings – unlike protests against lockdowns – on grounds that racism was a virus even more serious than Covid. Some of these protests got out of hand and became violent and destructive. 

Meanwhile, substance abuse rage – the liquor and weed stores never closed – and immune systems were being degraded by lack of normal exposure, exactly as the Bakersfield doctors had predicted. Millions of small businesses had closed. The learning losses from school closures were mounting, as it turned out that Zoom school was near worthless. 

It was about this time that Trump seemed to figure out – thanks to the wise council of Dr. Scott Atlas – that he had been played and started urging states to reopen. But it was strange: he seemed to be less in the position of being a president in charge and more of a public pundit, Tweeting out his wishes until his account was banned. He was unable to put the worms back in the can that he had approved opening. 

By that time, and by all accounts, Trump was convinced that the whole effort was a mistake, that he had been trolled into wrecking the country he promised to make great. It was too late. Mail-in ballots had been widely approved, the country was in shambles, the media and public health bureaucrats were ruling the airwaves, and his final months of the campaign failed even to come to grips with the reality on the ground. 

At the time, many people had predicted that once Biden took office and the vaccine was released, Covid would be declared to have been beaten. But that didn’t happen and mainly for one reason: resistance to the vaccine was more intense than anyone had predicted. The Biden administration attempted to impose mandates on the entire US workforce. Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, that effort was thwarted but not before HR departments around the country had already implemented them. 

As the months rolled on – and four major cities closed all public accommodations to the unvaccinated, who were being demonized for prolonging the pandemic – it became clear that the vaccine could not and would not stop infection or transmission, which means that this shot could not be classified as a public health benefit. Even as a private benefit, the evidence was mixed. Any protection it provided was short-lived and reports of vaccine injury began to mount. Even now, we cannot gain full clarity on the scale of the problem because essential data and documentation remains classified. 

After four years, we find ourselves in a strange position. We still do not know precisely what unfolded in mid-March 2020: who made what decisions, when, and why. There has been no serious attempt at any high level to provide a clear accounting much less assign blame. 

Not even Tucker Carlson, who reportedly played a crucial role in getting Trump to panic over the virus, will tell us the source of his own information or what his source told him. There have been a series of valuable hearings in the House and Senate but they have received little to no press attention, and none have focus on the lockdown orders themselves. 

The prevailing attitude in public life is just to forget the whole thing. And yet we live now in a country very different from the one we inhabited five years ago. Our media is captured. Social media is widely censored in violation of the First Amendment, a problem being taken up by the Supreme Court this month with no certainty of the outcome. The administrative state that seized control has not given up power. Crime has been normalized. Art and music institutions are on the rocks. Public trust in all official institutions is at rock bottom. We don’t even know if we can trust the elections anymore. 

In the early days of lockdown, Henry Kissinger warned that if the mitigation plan does not go well, the world will find itself set “on fire.” He died in 2023. Meanwhile, the world is indeed on fire. The essential struggle in every country on earth today concerns the battle between the authority and power of permanent administration apparatus of the state – the very one that took total control in lockdowns – and the enlightenment ideal of a government that is responsible to the will of the people and the moral demand for freedom and rights. 

How this struggle turns out is the essential story of our times. 

CODA: I’m embedding a copy of PanCAP Adapted, as annotated by Debbie Lerman. You might need to download the whole thing to see the annotations. If you can help with research, please do.

*  *  *

Jeffrey Tucker is the author of the excellent new book ‘Life After Lock-Down’

X users blasted establishment ‘scientist’ Neil deGrasse Tyson for owning a multi-million condominium in an area that is projected to be underwater in a climate change model. 

“In Florida, at 345-feet, Britton Hill is the highest elevation — the lowest highest elevation in United States. This makes Florida supremely susceptible to sea-level rise during Climate Change. An objective truth even if you don’t believe in Climate Change. Just Sayin’,” Tyson wrote on X on Sunday morning. 

In Florida, at 345-feet, Britton Hill is the highest elevation — the lowest highest elevation in United States. This makes Florida supremely susceptible to sea-level rise during Climate Change.

An objective truth even if you don’t believe in Climate Change. Just Sayin’. pic.twitter.com/bSf34O8pQc

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) March 10, 2024

X users quickly pointed out that Tyson owns a $2.1 million second-floor condo in Manhattan—an area that will be underwater in the scientist’s own climate change model. 

Why did you buy a multi-million dollar home here then? pic.twitter.com/uF3m23aFrh

— Spike Cohen (@RealSpikeCohen) March 11, 2024

Another X user showed the climate change scam: Nantucket, “Where elite Democrats buy oceanfront mansions,” such as the Obamas, who recently dropped nearly $12 million on an oceanfront beach house. 

They must know something you don’t pic.twitter.com/Zzd9AxX0PD

— Darth Crypto aKa Jesse Feinberg aced his LSATS (@DefNotDarth) March 10, 2024

The same people who push global warming also believe… 

You believe gender is ‘on a spectrum’

Zero credibility.

— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) March 10, 2024

And by the way, these global warming libtards have been pushing misinformation and disinformation to scare the general public for decades. 

Cough, cough, Tyson. 

How can we trust you about reality of climate change, when you can even define a difference between a man or a woman pic.twitter.com/o3sC4LkGt5

— John Ford (@PDXFato) March 10, 2024

Where’s the melting ice caps?

Lol ok. Show me evidence of sea level rise since the industrial age, I’m still waiting for the doomers to give us an accurate chart. Tidal fluctuations have been around since the beginning of land on earth. pic.twitter.com/vetnUVCqv2

— Ripplestiltskin (@NewEinHara) March 10, 2024

Has it occurred to these elites who peddle climate misinformation that they’re being laughed at?

“One fact of financial life should never be forgotten. Wall Street – to use the term in its figurative sense – would like its customers to make money, but what truly causes its denizens’ juices to flow is feverish activity. At such times, whatever foolishness can be marketed will be vigorously marketed – not by everyone but always by someone.”

         – Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway 2023 investor letter

One week ago, a polite feud broke out among some of Wall Street’s top strategists, when – nearly a year and a half after turning bearish when the S&P hit 3,500 and remaining steadfastly so every since – JPM’s equity strategist Marko Kolanovic goalseeked the usual selection of bearish reasons including “froth” and “complacency” to “explain” why the market melt up can not be sustained (instead of actually correctly predicting that the market will continue to melt up) and warned that the bubble is bursting. At the same time his colleague at Goldman, head of US equity strategy David Kostin, who has been far more constructive on stocks and has even raised his 2024 S&P price target not two but three times in the past few months, literally said that this bubble is different…

… and that 1999 and 2021 were worse, as “the prevalence of extreme valuations today looks far less widespread than in 2021 after adjusting for market concentration“, in other words, it is a bubble but only in the handful of stocks that really matter for the market… so there’s nothing to worry about this time or something. Here is the punchline:

The recent rally has driven the share of market cap in stocks with extremely high valuations to levels similar to those reached during the euphoria of 2021.

However, the prevalence of extreme valuations today looks far less widespread than in 2021 after adjusting for market concentration. The number of stocks with elevated EV/sales ratios has declined sharply from the peak in 2021. Unlike the broad-based “growth at any cost” in 2021, investors are mostly paying high valuations for the largest growth stocks in the index. This dynamic more closely resembles the Tech Bubble than 2021. However, in contrast with the late ’90s, we believe the valuation of the Magnificent 7 is currently supported by their fundamentals.

Another key difference between the market today and in 2021 is that the cost of capital is much higher today than it was then. In 2021, the implied weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of the S&P 500 fell to 3.8%, its lowest level in decades. The low cost of financing meant growth plans could be funded relatively cheaply at the same time as a low discount rate benefited the valuations of growth stocks with cash flows in the distant future. As inflation surged and the Fed hiked sharply, the cost of capital spiked. The WACC now equals 5.7%.

Translation: the bubble of Fabulous Four or so stocks that have done all the heavy in the past year may be poised to pop, but it’s not really a bubble as “this time is different”, plus it not like all those ridiculous EPS forecasts that see earnings growing exponential in perpetuity for AI/mega tech names, can all be wrong… can they?

Well, maybe they can… according to the world’s most powerful banker, Jamie Dimon, who was speaking at an Australian Financial Review business summit event, “little bit of a bubble in equity markets right now.“

The troubling admission, which framed Dimon’s far less optimistic admission about the US economy, in which he said that the “chance of a soft landing in the next year or two is half” of what the world is pricing in, “probably 70%-80%”,  came just hours after JPM’s Marko Kolanovic issued his weekly fire and brimstone sermon hoping that this week, this is the week, when he will finally be right and stocks will finally crash back to the mid-3000s.

In his latest JPMOrgan View note, Kolanovic once again tried to come up with any reason whatsoever that scare the bank’s clients and keep them out of what has so far been a 40% rally from the October 2022 lows (which is when Marko turned bearish), and said that the recent rush into momentum stocks like the Mag 7 has typically been followed by a correction whenever it has occurred in the past: as a result “while it is unclear whether the recent deceleration is simply a pause in the rally or the start of a pullback, in our view the risk-reward is negatively skewed.”

Kolanovic went on to caution – yet again – the bubble in Mag 7 stocks, writing that it’s only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down, to wit:

“a combination of High for Longer and the Halo Effect of LLM stocks has created market dislocations across global equities over the past year. Extreme crowding into Momentum has steadily risen along with equity investor positioning. Momentum is a dynamic stock factor that changes its exposure depending on macroeconomic and fundamental conditions. As such, it often becomes crowded, followed by an inevitable and often sharp correction (i.e. momentum crash)… NVDA has a causal relationship to S&P 500; given this relationship coupled with very bullish investor sentiment and positioning, we caution investors that this relationship is likely to work in reverse when the AI euphoria peaks.

…

As such, we keep a defensive allocation in our model portfolio, unchanged vs. last month, with an UW in equities and credit vs. OW in cash and commodities.”

Fundamentally, Marko is not wrong of course (and those interested can read more in his full note available to pro subs in the usual place), the problem – as anyone who listened to him and shorted stocks in September 2022 when we said his bearish pivot actually marked the market bottom, which we humbly suggest has been the best market-timing call this decade…

Kolanovic turned bearish. Bottom https://t.co/bXVFOHDoRS

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 30, 2022

… is that when it comes to timing market inflection points, the Croat strategist is an epic disaster, about as accurate as Cramer or Gartman. Which is why, sadly for the skeptics, as long as Marko remains bearish the market will rise.

Which, incidentally, is something that another Wall Street strategist would complete agree with: in her latest note published just one week after she hiked  her year-end S&P price target from 5,000 to 5,400 in keeping with all the other lemmings who chase price and then goalseek reasons to justify their groupthink, BofA’s Savita Subramanian said that she has “had a full week of feedback and pushback” since raising her year-end price target to 5,400, and notes that she hears “that sentiment is now “full bull”, the market is trading in bubble-like territory, and it is time for something else to break from the Fed’s aggressive monetary policy.“

She goes on to address several of the FAQs, essentially derivatives of one very direct question on a recent call: “Savita, are you forecasting a bubble?”

Q: What defines a bubble, and is the S&P 500 one?

A: Prior market bubble conditions include (1) a gap between price and intrinsic value, (2) democratization of the asset class, and (3) rampant speculation, often amplified by the use of leverage. Housing in 2007, Tech in 2000, tulips in 1637 are examples that tick these boxes. But the S&P 500 today does not: passive/index ownership (most of which is a proxy for the S&P 500) makes up just over half of US equity float, but Japan passive equity reached 80%. Moreover, CFTC data show net short positions by speculators. The gap between price and intrinsic value is high based on snapshot PE multiples, but the ex-Magnificent 7 trades closer to long-term average multiples, and, more importantly, today’s index lacks comparability to prior decades’, in our view.

* * *

Q: So historical valuation doesn’t matter?

A: Valuation matters. But comparing a trailing PE today to a trailing PE of prior decades makes little sense given the index’s mix shift (ZH: right, because it’s different this time… never heard that one before). Furthermore, companies have been forced to abandon low quality EPS growth (levered buybacks, global cost/tax arbitrage) to focus on efficiency, yielding more predictable margins and warranting a higher multiple. Finally, valuation is a poor predictor in the short-term (r-sq of 10% for 1yr returns) but is all that matters in the long-term. Today it indicates lower price returns over the next decade with a higher proportion of total return from dividends (ZH: so… don’t buy then? We are confused…)

Q: Is it 1995 or 1999?

A: More 1995. US equity sentiment is at almost precisely the same level as in 1995 based on our Sell Side Indicator – neutral, not wildly bullish like 1999. The S&P 500 ERP is at almost the same level as in the mid-90s, and actually went negative by 1999. The efficiency/productivity themes of today (AI, automation) are nascent like the PC revolution was in the mid-90s. In 1999, Tech was valued on price to eyeballs, today, the earnings contribution and capital discipline of TMT is similar to that of 1995’s Nifty 50.

Q: Where is equity sentiment today, really?

A: The net message of investor sentiment frameworks is neutral on US equities. Bull markets end with euphoria, and today euphoria has been ring-fenced to themes (AI, GLP-1 etc.) Sentiment has warmed up on equities since mid-2023, driving our slightly lower level of conviction in an up market, but is nowhere near bullish levels of prior market peaks. In our view, this bull market has legs.

In retrospect that is not even the worst, most goalseeked defense of the current tech bubble; And FWIW, we won’t even bother to debunk all the points brought up here. Instead we will leave it to the capable hands of Savita’s own co-worker Michael Hartnett who has done a phenomenal job of countering the bullshit of the “it is only a small bubble, plus this time it’s different” argument over, and over and over, and over again.

More in the full BofA report available to pro subs in the usual place.

Authored by Amy Denney via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Jean Wendrick acknowledges that she’s been mostly unhealthy her whole life—suffering from diabetes since she was in her 20s and overcoming breast cancer more recently.

At a doctor’s appointment last year, Ms. Wendrick learned she has osteopenia, a condition in which her body isn’t making new bone cells quickly enough, which often leads to osteoporosis. Her doctor suggested medication—the same type her mother has been taking.

“It was devastating to me,” she said. “My mom is hunched over with osteoporosis and can only look at the floor. She’s in so much pain, and she took all the meds. It was all for nothing.”

While Ms. Wendrick can see her potential future when looking at her 86-year-old mother, she also finds reasons, when thinking of her 18-year-old daughter, Victoria, whom she had at age 47, to make the changes that can restore her health.

Thus, Ms. Wendrick became determined six months ago that she would live out her years in the best possible health. She knew it would demand real change and a true return to a healthy lifestyle—something her doctor’s prescriptions could never give her.

The Doctor’s Dilemma

Ms. Wendrick’s experience is common. Facing devastating illness, patients are offered drugs that have little effect and create problems that patients may never be told about.

While some doctors will do little beyond suggesting surgery or a new prescription, many others do recommend their patients make lifestyle changes to fundamentally resolve the cause of chronic conditions.

However, all too often, these recommendations come as brief commands to “lose weight,” “exercise more,” or “eat better” and are often served with a sprinkle of judgment.

Health care providers may then blame patients for their inability to follow such orders.

A study in Finland echoes findings in other settings where physicians and nurses say patients with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and who smoke, just won’t do what they are told.

“A majority [of both physicians and nurses] agreed that a major barrier to the treatment of lifestyle-related conditions is patients’ unwillingness to change their habits,” the study states.

And all too often this is true. However, research also suggests doctors and nurses dispense such advice in ineffective ways. Giving orders in brief and hurried appointments is not an effective way to get patients to address long-standing habits, like eating certain foods, advised Dr. Ann Lindsay, a physician and clinical professor in medicine at Stanford, in an article in Stanford Medicine’s Scope magazine.

“Everybody basically wants to lead a healthy life,” Dr. Lindsay told Scope, “but there are different beliefs and obstacles that contribute to ambivalence.”

Helping patients overcome those beliefs and navigate those obstacles simply isn’t in the job description for many health care practitioners.

One part of the issue is a lack of time. Another part of the issue is that physicians simply don’t know how to help patients or communicate these issues well. Many doctors have no meaningful relationship with the people whose lives depend on them.

Physicians who learn how to communicate well are more than twice as effective in getting patients to make lifestyle changes, said Dr. Lindsay.

One of the reasons for the rise of functional medicine is a desire from both patients and physicians to focus on the systemic lifestyle factors behind disease.

A Different Approach to Medicine

Making changes requires patients to take responsibility—and health care practitioners to effectively support that change, say experts.

“Before I had excuses. I ate what I wanted when I wanted, and I was eating for emotions. I always had symptoms. I didn’t do any exercise. It was awful,” Ms. Wendrick recalled. “Now, there is a reason for me to get up in the morning and finally take care of me. I know it takes discipline and determination to get results.”

Ms. Wendrick is on a mission to get her diabetes under control, lose weight, and strengthen her bones. She hired a new doctor to help her succeed, Dr. Scott Doughty, a family doctor at U.P. Holistic Medicine in Michigan. Ms. Wendrick calls him “the boss.” She’s lost 30 pounds so far and said she feels like she’s in her 20s.

For the first time in her health care experience, Ms. Wendrick felt listened to and that she had suitable options and a support system that would allow her to avoid the poor prognosis she was facing. It became easier for her to comply because she felt in control and supported by Dr. Doughty, she said.

Ms. Wendrick isn’t an exception. Patient engagement, motivation, and support are vital ingredients for healing disease from the standpoint of functional medicine and research studies.

The American Medical Association (AMA) says doctors need to help patients find their motivation and give them small but meaningful targets for improvement—like a 5 percent weight reduction.

The AMA also raises the need for an engaging coach, someone capable of getting patients to participate in lifestyle programs.

Unfortunately, these programs are still hard to come by in many areas and physicians may not even be aware they exist. All too often, doctors simply tell patients they need to take a new drug or have surgery, with little in the way of discussion.

Medicinal Commands

A 2019 study revealed that a shared power balance between patients and health care providers was critical to active patient participation and adherence to treatment in chronic illnesses.

“Patients cannot be forced to follow a lifestyle dictated by others,” notes the study published in the International Journal of Community Based Nursing and Midwifery. “The finding suggests that adherence is facilitated by empowerment that includes competence in self-care, adaptability, and persistence in treatment.”

Telling people they need to “stop this or stop that” almost universally fails, Dr. Joel Evans, founder and director of the Center for Functional Medicine, told The Epoch Times. It’s more effective, he said, to find beneficial things to add to behavior such as eating more fruits and vegetables.

“By talking to patients this way, they feel more cared for, and they’re more likely to participate in the creation of a plan … and they’re more likely to follow the plan,” Dr. Evans said. “The doctor dictator doesn’t work.”

While it can be frustrating to encounter doctors who don’t offer options or support, patients can voice concerns, ask for more resources, or find help elsewhere as Ms. Wendrick did.

Doctors As Dictators

Physicians find themselves in an impossible bind. They often believe they must convey a sense of certainty and authority to give their patients confidence in prescribed treatments—and yet there is little certainty in medicine. This can lead to issuing orders rather than engaging patients in more meaningful conversations.

Read more here…

Transit Workers Union Local 234 President Brian Pollitt is demanding accountability from Gov. Josh Shapiro, Mayor Cherelle Parker, and SEPTA officials after a string of violent crimes on and around Philadelphia mass transit over the last few weeks. 

In fact, he says he has been calling for National Guard deployment on SEPTA – similar to how New York City has deployed the National Guard on MTA – for four years, according to WKYW.

“I think that governor needs a round of applause because they’re going through the very same thing that we’re going through,” Pollitt said of New York City. 

He says many drivers are seeking retirement because of how dangerous the job has gotten and that it is tough recruiting new drivers. “And I got young people coming in the door and once they come in here and see how things are, they’re going out there looking for other opportunities,” he said. 

Recall last Thursday we wrote about 8 teens who were shot near a SEPTA bus in Northeast Philadelphia. The incident came just hours after the last shooting injuring four and killing one involving mass transit in Philadelphia.

The incident occurred at around 3 p.m. near Northeast High School at Cottman and Rising Sun avenues, where students were waiting for a bus. Three assailants opened fire, shooting over 30 rounds from across the street, wounding eight teenagers.

Surveillance captured them exiting a blue Hyundai Sonata and attacking as a bus arrived, then fleeing. The victims, aged between 15 and 17, included seven boys and a girl; two are critically injured.

Descriptions of the gunmen have been released. The shooting prompted a lockdown at a nearby elementary school and hit two SEPTA buses without injuring passengers.

Police have impounded a car believed to be involved in the shooting, seizing a blue Hyundai Sonata found parked on Roselyn Street in the Olney area of the city on Wednesday night. The vehicle, now at a local impound lot, is said to match the description of the dark blue 2019 Hyundai Sonata identified as the getaway car in surveillance footage.

Mayor Cherelle Parker commented last week: “The purpose of our being here today is to inform you all that enough is enough. That every law enforcement partner that we have here in the city of Philadelphia is actively engaged in working together to ensure that every resource that is needed is readily available so that the work can be done to solve crimes.”