The Wall Street says it has gotten its hands on a secretive document revealing the details of a failed Ukraine-Russia peace deal that was on the table within the opening months of the war. Since then there have been several reports, including from Foreign Affairs which said the UK at the time sought to sabotage the deal.

The draft peace treaty was drawn up by negotiators from both sides in April 2022, and reveals the thinking and objectives of Moscow at the time. The 17-page document has never been made public, with the WSJ for the first time on Friday divulging key sections and points.

Dated April 15, 2022, the document is said to lay out an agreement that turns Ukraine into a “permanently neutral state that doesn’t participate in military blocs”. It further stipulated that Ukraine must not build up its military using Western support and that Crimea must remain under Russian control.

The WSJ analysis admits that there were some deep concessions on the table from the Ukraine side, and further underscores many of these things would likely remain in place in any future deal where Ukraine would no doubt be inflicted with even more compromises given its forces are currently being rolled back by superior Russian military might.

“The draft treaty states that Ukraine, while being allowed to pursue European Union membership, wouldn’t be allowed to join military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,” according to the report. “No foreign weapons would be allowed on Ukrainian soil.”

And importantly, “Ukraine’s military would be pared down to a specific size.” The proposed deal even sought to impose permanent limitations on the Ukraine armed forces’ troop numbers: “Russia sought to limit everything from the number of troops and tanks to the maximum firing range of Ukrainian missiles.”

Another key point dealt with the role of the Russian language in Ukrainian society. Some two-thirds of the country at least knows Russian, while much of the eastern portion that includes the Donbas speaks Russian as their first language. The document reportedly sought to ensure the Russian language had an equal status in Ukrainian government ministries and in courts. The Zelensky government has since the war’s start sought to aggressively limit and even stamp out Russian in the public sphere.

According to more context of the draft deal from the WSJ:

The future of the area of eastern Ukraine covertly invaded and occupied by Russia in 2014, wasn’t included in the draft, leaving it up to Putin and Zelensky to complete in face-to-face talks. That meeting never took place.

The treaty was to be guaranteed by foreign powers, which are listed on the document as including the U.S., U.K, China, France and Russia. Those countries would be given the responsibility to defend Ukraine’s neutrality if the treaty were violated. But while the treaty held, guarantors would be required to “terminate international treaties and agreements incompatible with the permanent neutrality of Ukraine” including any promises of bilateral military aid. The international security guarantees wouldn’t apply to Crimea and Sevastopol.

Negotiations stopped completely by June of that year, and there were widespread reports months after indicating that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson encouraged Zelensky not to make a deal with Moscow.

Meanwhile, entering the third year of this horrific and tragic conflict which has taken countless lives:

“Ukraine will join NATO. It is not a question of if, but when,” Jens Stoltenberg, secretary general of NATO, said. pic.twitter.com/WLbyNS8TL3

— DW News (@dwnews) February 24, 2024

Hundreds of billions in arms and funding have since been poured into Kiev and its war effort, and tragically likely hundreds of thousands have died. So much death and destruction could have been averted if an early deal had been reached and held, and backed by external powers.

The WSJ gives specifics on troop limitations from the 17-page document in the following: 

The draft treaty with Ukraine included banning foreign weapons, “including missile weapons of any type, armed forces and formations.” Moscow wanted Ukraine’s armed forces capped at 85,000 troops, 342 tanks and 519 artillery pieces. Ukrainian negotiators wanted 250,000 troops, 800 tanks and 1,900 artillery pieces, according to the document. Russia wanted to have the range of Ukrainian missiles capped at 40 kilometers (about 25 miles). 

But Ukraine is now likely in for more severe restrictions on any future Ukrainian state and military, should there ever be a negotiation for the end of the war reached (assuming Moscow and NATO don’t stumble into direct war by then).

Bloomberg on Thursday issued a report predicting total collapse of the Ukrainian front lines by summer, as the headline suggests (Ukraine Sees Risk of Russia Breaking Through Defenses by Summer): “Ukrainian officials are concerned that Russian advances could gain significant momentum by the summer unless their allies can increase the supply of ammunition, according to a person familiar with their analysis,” the report said. Will peace settlement talks begin at that point, or will the West intervene even more forcefully? 

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

Although my focus is on markets rather than politics, it’s impossible to forecast markets without understanding what’s going on in the political realm. While there are important Senate and House races this year, all eyes are focused on the presidential race likely (as of now) to be between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

A Trump vs. Biden (if he makes it) replay of the 2020 election could be close and is difficult to predict this far in advance. But we can say that the simple narrative of Trump vs. Biden does not come close to capturing the complexities of what’s ahead.

In the first place, Biden may not even be the Democratic nominee because of his obvious physical and mental disabilities. I’ll save the Biden story for another day. For now, let’s look at the other wild card affecting the 2024 election — the role of third parties.

Most observers disregard third-party candidates. They typically get 1–2% of the vote, don’t come close to winning individual states and have no impact on the final electoral results. That’s true, but there are some important historical exceptions.

To understand the potential impact of third parties and get a preview of what might happen this year, we need to look at three critical elections. In reverse chronological order, they are 1992, 1968 and 1912.

In 1992, Ross Perot won about 19% of the popular vote (that’s huge for a third-party candidate) but he won no states. Still, his impact on the final result was enormous. Perot was an early version of “America First.” He leaned conservative, although he had unconventional views on a number of policy issues. On balance, he took more votes from George H.W. Bush than he did from Bill Clinton.

In the end, Clinton won with 43% of the vote and carried 32 states (plus D.C.) compared to 37.5% of the vote and 18 states for George H.W. Bush. But if Perot’s 18.9% of the vote were divided two-thirds for Bush and one-third for Clinton (as some analysts suggest), Bush might easily have won several more states.

Moving those electoral votes from the Clinton column to the Bush column would have changed the outcome of the election. Perot marked the downfall of Bush’s chances for a second term.

In 1968, George Wallace as a third-party candidate actually did win five states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia) and got 46 electoral votes. But that was not enough to stop Nixon, who won 32 states and got 301 electoral votes.

The key to Nixon’s victory was the dismal performance of Hubert Humphrey, who won only 13 states (plus D.C.) and got 191 electoral votes. The popular vote was much closer, 43.4% for Nixon and 42.7% for Humphrey, but the popular vote doesn’t count; it’s the electoral vote that decides elections. The lesson of 1968 is that even when a third-party wins states, it does not necessarily stop a major party candidate from winning the election outright.

An even more interesting case is 1912. This election involved Woodrow Wilson (Democrat), William Taft (Republican) and Teddy Roosevelt (Bull Moose). Roosevelt had been president from 1901–1909 but stepped aside in 1909 to allow Taft to succeed him.

In 1912, Roosevelt challenged Taft for the Republican nomination but lost. At that point, Roosevelt formed his new Bull Moose third party and ran in the general election.

Wilson got 40 states and 435 electoral votes, a landslide. Roosevelt actually ran ahead of Taft. TR got six states and 88 electoral votes. Taft finished third with two states and 8 electoral votes. (A fourth candidate, Eugene V. Debs, got 6% of the vote and no states running as a socialist.)

The dynamic was also interesting. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote about evenly, 27.4% for TR and 23.2% for Taft. Together, the Republicans had 50.6% of the vote, probably enough to win.

Wilson got only 41.8% of the popular vote, but that was way ahead of TR and Taft when taken individually, so he won 40 states. The lesson of that election is when a major party feuds with itself, the other party wins big.

So 1968 and 1912 are both cases in which a third party won a number of states (five for Wallace, six for Roosevelt), but still not enough to prevent a major party candidate from getting to 270 (depending on the year) electoral votes or much higher (Nixon was 301 and Wilson was 435). The 1992 election was one where the third party (Perot) won no states, but probably did change the outcome of the election in favor of Clinton.

The 2024 election with third-party candidates looks like a blend of all three elections: 1992, 1968 and 1912.

The third-party candidates running (so far) include Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West and Jill Stein.

RFK Jr. is attempting to get on the ballot in key states on his own but may abandon that effort and become the Libertarian Party candidate. The Libertarian Party is already on the ballot in almost every state. The candidate and the party are in discussions and an announcement is expected in March.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is being attacked by the media as a “fringe” candidate. In fact, he is one of the most thoughtful and truthful voices in politics today. Those qualities may transcend voter disagreement with particular policies.

Jill Stein is running as the Green Party candidate and will be on the ballot in almost every state. She is not expected to win more than about 2% of the vote, but in certain states, 2% is enough to tip the election if the Green vote comes from Biden. This happened in 2016 when the Jill Stein vote in Wisconsin may have cost Hillary Clinton that state in a contest decided by less than 1% of the vote.

Cornel West has not set up his own party yet but is endeavoring to get on the ballot in key states as RFK Jr. is. West is a socialist but is highly articulate and charismatic and will make a strong candidate. His efforts would also cost Biden votes in some key states.

Finally, there is the No Labels Party. They have been spending millions of dollars to get on the ballot in all 50 states. They have not announced a candidate yet, but they are in discussions about a fusion ticket that would include Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Jon Huntsman (though Manchin has announced he won’t run).

The idea would be to run down the middle that considers Trump too radical and Biden too senile. I don’t expect No Labels to win any states, but they will peel votes away from Biden, handing states to Trump. That could form the basis for a Trump electoral vote landslide similar to Wilson’s in 1912.

The third parties combined — No Labels, RFK Jr., Libertarian, Cornel West and Jill Stein — could collectively take upwards of 20% of the vote like Perot in 1992. But they will principally take votes from the Democrats, the reverse of what TR did to Taft in 1912.

This would guarantee a landslide victory for Trump like Nixon in 1968.

It’s impossible to predict exactly how events will unfold. But it’s not difficult to see a wild election season with six credible parties fighting state-by-state and confounding the customary polls and pundits.

Prepare for electoral and market volatility ahead.

President Biden wants the G7 countries to develop a plan to eventually have Russia’s frozen sovereign assets handed over Ukraine in order to support the war effort, Bloomberg has reported. Bloomberg’s source have also said the US president has privately warned allies that Ukraine’s collapse, and a Russian victory, would signify the international order is effectively destroyed for at least the next half-century.

“G-7 officials have been discussing options to use the $280 billion of immobilized Russian Central Bank assets, including using the money as collateral to raise debt or issuing guarantees against the frozen funds, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity,” according to the report. Biden reportedly wants a firm plan proposed by the time of the Italy G7 summit in June. The US has been working behind the scenes to build consensus.

The UK and Canada are reportedly on board, but not Germany and France. Earlier this week France firmly voiced its rejection of seizing the frozen Russian bank funds.

“We don’t think this legal basis is sufficient,” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said after the G7 finance ministers meeting in Brazil on Wednesday.

“This legal basis must be accepted not only by the European countries, not only by the G7 countries, but by all the member states of the world community, and I mean by all the member states of the G20. We should not add any kind of division among the G20 countries.”

Opponents, including of course Russian officials themselves, have highlighted that such a act would be outright and brazen theft.

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has warned in response, “We have ways to respond. We have also frozen sufficient volumes of financial assets and investments of foreign investors in our securities, all of which transfers we carry out for the owners of our securities.”

Europe has to agree to any US push to freeze banks funds, since the bulk of Russia’s money – about $200 billion – is being held by European banks. In such a scenario Moscow may consider the ‘theft’ to be tantamount to an act of war.

Still, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was undeterred when she was in Brazil this week. “It is necessary and urgent for our coalition to find a way to unlock the value of these immobilized assets to support Ukraine’s continued resistance and long-term reconstruction,” she had said from Sao Paulo, speaking to 20 finance ministers and central bank governors.

“I believe there is a strong international law, economic, and moral case for moving forward. This would be a decisive response to Russia’s unprecedented threat to global stability,” she added.

Authored by Ross Pomeroy via RealClear Wire,

At Frontiers in Psychology, it seems that users on X are now part of the peer review process.

On January 4th, the paper “Meta-analysis: On average, undergraduate students’ intelligence is merely average,” was accepted to the journal. That same day, the abstract was published with the notice that the “final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.”

Soon thereafter, the paper went viral, quickly accruing over 54,000 views, wide discussion on X and Reddit, and coverage in popular media (including RCS). It garnered this attention for its intriguing yet simultaneously obvious finding: over the past 80 years, as a far greater proportion of North Americans attended college, the average IQ of college undergraduates dropped from around 120 to 102, just slightly above the average of 100.

As the authors, Bob Uttl, a psychologist and faculty member at Mount Royal University, and his students Victoria Violo and Lacey Gibson, noted, “The decline in students’ IQ is a necessary consequence of increasing educational attainment over the last 80 years. Today, graduating from university is more common than completing high school in the 1940s.” College students no longer come solely from the ranks of the highly intelligent and privileged, they come from all corners of society. Uttl and his colleagues noted that this has implications. For example, academic standards and curricula might have to be adjusted. Moreover, employers can’t assume that applicants with university degrees are more capable or smarter than those without degrees.

A little over a month after Uttl, Violo, and Gibson’s paper was accepted and the abstract published, they were abruptly notified by email that it was rejected. They were apprised that Specialty Chief Editor Eddy Davelaar, a Professor of Psychology and Applied Neuroscience at Birkbeck, University of London, overrode the three peer reviewers who approved the paper and even his own handling editor. His reasons were subsequently forwarded to Uttl and his colleagues.

While Davelaar raised a couple of issues with the paper’s methods, the vast majority of his focus was on its tone. He wrote that the use of the word “merely” in reference to college students’ just-above-average IQ was “demeaning.” He also noted that the authors’ critiques of other scientists’ works “could have been packaged more sensitively.” He also called unfounded the authors’ opinion that the widening participation policies of universities were the cause of undergraduates’ falling IQs.

In emails viewed by RealClearScience, Uttl extensively refuted Davelaar’s issues the same day the paper was rejected (Feb. 6), to which he received no reply from Davelaar or Frontiers for six days. On February 12, Frontiers replied saying that Davelaar’s concerns remained. If they were addressed, “the manuscript could be reconsidered for publication.”

Uttl subsequently published his refutations of Davelaar’s methodological criticisms online. Lending strength to his arguments is that fact that three peer reviewers and even Davelaar’s own handling editor did not find fault with Uttl’s paper.

Davelaar’s problems with the paper’s tone and conclusions were harder to address, because they were his opinions. It seemed strange that an editor’s opinions should supplant those of the paper’s authors. It’s not his paper, after all.

In response to a request for comment, Frontiers stated that an article can be rejected at any stage before official publication. A public relations manager then quoted their editorial process, “…if a manuscript does not meet our editorial criteria and standards for publication, or if peer-review or research integrity concerns are raised by any review participant or reader (abstracts are published online ahead of official publication), the journal’s chief editors and Frontiers’ Chief Executive Editor will investigate these concerns, regardless of peer review or acceptance stage.”

Frontiers added:

The Speciality Chief Editor (SCE) reviewed the paper in line with our clearly stated editorial process when concerns were raised about the abstract, particularly about underlying bias. The SCE assessment concurred with some reviewers’ judgements, identifying substantive flaws in the meta-analysis and bias in the tone of the paper. The authors were given further opportunities to revise the paper in line with reviewer and SCE comments. These requested revisions were not made but once again disputed. 

RealClearScience reached out directly to Davelaar for comment, but he has not replied.

Uttl was curious what brought on the sudden rejection of his already accepted paper, so he asked representatives at Frontiers. He was told that “several posts” on X triggered Dr. Davelaar’s review. As readers were only able to view the abstract, and thus weren’t able to assess the authors’ methodology, it seems clear that they complained purely about the authors’ tone and provocative conclusions. Davelaar only found ‘problems’ with Uttl, Violo, and Gibson’s methods afterwards.

Uttl and his co-authors were not apprised of the content of the X posts.

“I think an editor or whoever owes it to us to tell us what the issues are, allows us to respond, before rejection,” he told RCS in an email.

Uttl, Violo, and Gibson have since had their publication fees refunded and have submitted the paper for publication at another journal.

By John Kingston of Freightwaves

The contract agreement reached this week between the Teamsters union and Anheuser-Busch, averting a strike that could have begun Friday, calls for wage increases of $8 an hour over the five years of the deal. A $4-per-hour raise kicks in immediately.

Anheuser-Busch announced the deal late Wednesday. It awaits ratification in the coming days by approximately 5,000 workers across the company’s U.S. operations. 

The new contract also calls for a $2,500 ratification bonus.

As to whether ratification is likely, any worker dissatisfaction with Teamsters contracts generally shows up through the dissident Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), which is often critical of deals struck by the union’s negotiators. However, TDU notably was supportive of the union’s deal with UPS and more recently backed a new contract at U.S. Foods.

TDU comments on its website regarding the deal at Anheuser-Busch were noncommittal. It noted the length of the deal, the wage increases and other changes in benefits, and said only that Teamsters members at the brewery would “be able to review all contract changes before the ratification vote, which is expected to be held next week.”

The breakdown of how many of those 5,000 workers are truck drivers and warehouse employees was not immediately available from the union.

In its prepared statement announcing the contract agreement, Anheuser-Busch said the deal “builds even further upon our existing industry-leading package of wages, healthcare, and retirement benefits, and it includes significant commitments to job security.”

“At Anheuser-Busch, we have said time and again that our people are our greatest strength, and we are incredibly pleased to have reached a tentative agreement that continues to recognize the talent, dedication, and hard work of our teams, while also positioning the Company for long-term success,” Brendan Whitworth, CEO of  Anheuser-Busch, said in the statement.

The Teamsters statement on the deal was more detailed. In its bullet point list of provisions in the contract, the union said that besides the hourly wage increases, the pact provides:

• –“Significant job security for all 5,000 Teamsters at Anheuser-Busch, including brewers, packagers, and warehouse workers.”
• –An average wage increase of 23% over the five years of the deal.
• –“An end to two-tier health care, providing all workers with the same high-quality Teamsters health care coverage.”
• –“Increased pension contributions and benefits nationwide.”
• –“Increased maximum vacation accrual to 8 paid weeks.”
• –“Restoration of retirement benefits for active and retired members.”

The Teamsters are on strike at a brewery operated by Molson Coors (NYSE: TAP) in Fort Worth, Texas. Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, celebrating the contract with Anheuser-Busch, noted that the union “continue[s] to hold the line at Molson Coors in Texas.” That company, O’Brien said, “should pay close attention to the bar we’ve set today for brewery workers across the country.”

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Russia and Iran developed a way to avoid the US dollar routing system known as SWIFT, Trade between the nations is booming.

Image from US Institute for Peace – The Iran Primer.

What is the SWIFT Banking System?

Investopedia explains: The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system powers most international money and security transfers. SWIFT is a vast messaging network used by financial institutions to quickly, accurately, and securely send and receive information, such as money transfer instructions.

Most global transitions touch SWIFT in some way. The EU wanted to develop a way around SWIFT because the EU is sick (rightfully so) of the US setting sanction policy for the whole world.

Russia beat the China to secure SWIFT avoidance mechanism.

Russia’s Trade Routes to Iran

Eurointelligence discusses Russia’s Trade Routes to Iran

Business between the two most sanctioned countries in the world, Russia and Iran, is thriving. Iran’s exports to Russia have surpassed the $2bn mark last year according to Iran’s ambassador to Moscow. This is a considerable jump from the figures the previous years, and a 30% rise throughout the year, according to the Tehran Chamber of Commerce. The total value of bilateral trade between the two in volume reached $4.9bn in 2023 according to Iran’s official statistics. A Russian economic delegation with 170 representatives was in Tehran this week as the two countries held the 17th round of their joint economic commission. The two sides have pledged to increase trade tenfold over the coming years.

What facilitates their trade is their own banking solution, which the two countries set up last year to circumvent the dollar. The two central banks managed to connect Iran’s Sepam national financial messaging service to Russia’s SPFS messaging service, its equivalent to the Swift system. In connection with this new system, Russian banks started operating offices in Tehran, and offered credit lines to ease exports from Russia to Iran. There are similar plans in Iran for exports towards Russia. Intensifying trade with Russia is part of Iran’s Look to the East strategy that aims to neutralise the effects of US sanctions by expanding into new markets.

Lesson of the Day

Didn’t you declare victory on these sanctions?

Here’s the deal: China and India will always buy. And they should. It’s in their best interest.

— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) September 18, 2023

On September 19, 2023, my Lesson of the Day was Sanctions Don’t Work Because They Create New Markets

Lesson of the Day: Sanctions Create New Markets

Foreign Policy: “Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Greece’s mighty shipping sector has continued to earn good money shipping Russian oil. But Greek shipowners have discovered an apparently even more lucrative source of revenue: selling the ships themselves to mysterious buyers linked to Russia. One publication has declared that a “Great Greek Tanker Sale” is taking place, and no price seems too high for a secondhand tanker. But the formerly Greek ships are entering a Hades-like shadow economy.”

Lesson Number Two

Countries, political leaders, and market makers act in their best interest.

It is in the best interest of Greek shippers to sell ships so they do. It is in the best interest of India and China to buy Russian oil and Greek ships so they do. It is in the best interest of Dubai middlemen to make a market in ships so they do.

What this boils down to is simple: It is the best interest of middlemen in Greece, Russia, India, China, and Dubai to tell Biden to go to hell, so they do.

How Russia Makes a Mockery of US Sanctions in One Picture

Unprecedented US and EU sanctions against Russia have had no impact on Russia’s oil exports or revenue. Who’s the beneficiary?

On December 29, 2023 I explained How Russia Makes a Mockery of US Sanctions in One Picture

Buyer’s Cartel Silliness

The number of economists promoting a buyer’s cartel to suppress the price of Russian oil (and only Russian oil) only was stunning.

I laughed at the idea when it was proposed on June 28, 2022 in A Laughable Explanation of the G7 Oil Price Buyers’ Cartel Emerges

Despite the obvious stupidity of the scheme, some prominent economists backed the idea.

How China Gets Around US Sanctions on Semiconductors

The largest source of rising Chinese semiconductor equipment imports comes from lithography machines used to print circuitry patterns onto silicon wafers, but purchases up and down the semiconductor manufacturing process have risen dramatically in 2023. pic.twitter.com/QV3vWC7JO5

— Joey Politano 🏳️‍🌈 (@JosephPolitano) February 17, 2024

On February 18, 2024 I noted How China Gets Around US Sanctions on Semiconductors

If You Weaponize the Dollar and Confiscate Assets, Expect Retaliation

By weaponizing the banking system against enemies outside and within, advanced economies are losing their ‘risk free’ status. This may not change the global currency order for now, but could lead to a wild scramble for gold and other tangible assets.https://t.co/QFkdkBMnf4

— Joseph Wang (@FedGuy12) March 7, 2022

Russia seized the local assets of Carlsberg beer and yogurt maker Danone. It now threatens Austria’s Raiffeisen bank.

My lesson of the day on July 20, 2023 was Lesson of the Day: If You Weaponize the Dollar and Confiscate Assets, Expect Retaliation

At the onset of the war, the Fed, under direction of the Biden Administration, illegally seized Russia’s foreign reserves. Illegal is the correct word.

Nowhere does the act give the Fed the right or power to confiscate the reserves of sovereign nations. But that is exactly what the Fed did when it seized Russia’s US dollar reserves. 

If the Fed can confiscate Russia’s reserves, who’s next?

Weaponization of Swift

Please consider the Richmond Fed article What Is SWIFT, and Could Sanctions Impact the U.S. Dollar’s Dominance? 

The recent removal of Russian banks from the SWIFT messaging system has highlighted the importance of payments in supporting economies. But the weaponization of SWIFT has also left some commentators worrying about the loss of the U.S. dollar’s dominance, as it might drive banks and firms to other substitutes. This Economic Brief discusses the economics of SWIFT and explains why emigrating from the U.S. dollar may be more difficult than we thought.

It appears to me Russia and Iran just succeeded.

US policy is to blame.

However, it’s easier for Russia than it will be for China because China is too dependent on exports to the US and EU. Regardless, more dollar and SWIFT avoidance is in the pipeline.

The BRICS are working on a similar idea. They will fail to achieve much traction except in one area, sanction avoidance.

For discussion and reasons why, please see What Would it Take for a BRIC-Based Currency to Succeed?

None of the conditions for a meaningful launch of a BRIC-based currency are in place, at least on a dollar volume basis. Talk of dethroning the dollar is silly.

However, sanction avoidance is another matter. Coupled with central bank digital currencies, countries and individuals will have a clear means of sanction avoidance. US sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and other nations and individuals are a tiny percent of global trade, but those sanctions are not trivial to the individuals and countries sanctions.

I wrote that August 23, 2023. And here we are.

While conservative states like Florida have passed legislation to institute the death penalty for criminals guilty of child sexual abuse and child trafficking, it’s becoming more and more difficult in blue states to punish pedophiles at all.  No other issue so fully reflects the growing rift between the political left and everyone else in America today.  If we can’t even agree that child sex abusers should face severe punishment, then how can we possibly agree on anything else?

Colorado Democrats have recently struck down House Bill 1092, a bill that would have instituted minimum sentencing for offenders convicted of selling or buying children for the purposes of exploitation.  The bill was heard in the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, which is also known as the “kill committee.” On Thursday, the panel lived up to its nickname, killing the bill on an 8-3 party-line vote.  The eight Democrats who voted to stop HB 1092 were State Reps. Andrew Boesenecker, Kyle Brown, Elisabeth Epps, Jennifer Lea Parenti, Naquetta Ricks, Manny Rutinel, Jenny Wilford, and Steven Woodrow.

50 witnesses crowded into the state Capitol hearing room to testify on the bill’s passage, with 47 of them in favor of the legislation and only 3 people against.  Some of the witnesses were themselves survivors of abuse and trafficking.  Republicans who voted in favor of the bill noted that many child traffickers escape with light sentences or they are sometimes let back onto the streets within days of their arrest. 

Sick! Democrats in Colorado shot down a bill that would’ve mandated harsher punishment for pedos who bought and sold children for s*x.

Why would anyone want to protect pedos? pic.twitter.com/aRMBYFnn8T

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 28, 2024

You might be wondering at this point whose side the Democrats are on?  Colorado Democrats reportedly argued that they oppose the harsher minimum sentences in part because offenders might “also be victims,” a narrative which has been spreading among leftist activists often in relation to LGBT issues and trans rights issues.  The purpose?  They assert that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation, and once something is labeled an orientation it suddenly becomes a protected group status.

But not all behaviors should be tolerated in a civilized society and just because someone might be a “victim” that does not justify their victimization of others.  Leftist states have increasingly targeted children with sexualized propaganda including unproven gender fluid theories, to drag shows and trans indoctrination, to sex change hormones and operations on minors without parental consent, to pornographic content in school libraries. 

Not long ago Democrats denied any of these activities were real and accused conservatives of “conspiracy theory.”  Now that they have been thoroughly exposed, the leftist response is to defend the sexualization of children rather than admit they are wrong.  One could chalk it all up to the progressive tendency to care more about “winning” than caring about what is actually right, or perhaps there is a more nefarious motive behind their consistent defense of such reprehensible criminal behaviors.

Colorado Democrats seemed to be more outraged by the social media response after they struck down Bill 1092, with some arguing that Republicans House members needed to self-censor.  Online commenters posted pictures of wood chippers and nooses on the internet, which Democrats interpreted as a threat.  Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie said her office has contacted Colorado State Patrol over online posts related to the child trafficking bill, as well as the trans rights legislation.             

Authored by Lorenz Duchamps via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Authorities in California seized enough lethal doses of fentanyl last year to kill the entire global population “nearly twice over,” according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office.

In a statement on Feb. 27, the Democrat governor said operations supported by the state’s National Guard, or CalGuard, led to the seizure of a record 62,224 pounds of fentanyl in the state and at ports of entry in 2023, marking a 1,066 percent increase since 2021.

The street price for the intercepted fentanyl would be about $670 million, according to calculations using the Los Angeles High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area price sheet for that year.

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, two milligrams of fentanyl is considered a potentially lethal dose, and one kilogram of the drug has the potential to kill 500,000 people.

“Fentanyl is a poison, and it does not belong in our communities,” Mr. Newsom said. “California is cracking down, increasing seizures, expanding access to substance abuse treatment, and holding drug traffickers accountable to combat the immeasurable harm opioids have caused our communities.”

In 2022, authorities in the Golden State seized 28,765 pounds of fentanyl, up from 5,334 pounds in 2021.

To tackle the evolving opioid addiction crisis in California, Mr. Newsom allocated $1 billion to law enforcement agencies and other public entities across the state to combat overdoses and raise awareness about the dangers of opioids such as fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is a major contributor to drug overdose deaths in the United States.

The state’s billion-dollar plan included a multi-million dollar effort to boost CalGuard’s work in preventing drug-trafficking transnational criminal organizations. Since it was launched last year, more than 140 new CalGuard members have been hired, trained, and embedded to reduce fentanyl use in communities.

“The California National Guard is committed to combatting the scourge of fentanyl,” CalGuard’s Maj. Gen. Matthew Beevers said in a statement. “These extraordinary seizure statistics are a direct reflection of the tireless efforts of the highly trained CalGuard Service Members supporting law enforcement agencies statewide.”

Overdose Deaths

Fentanyl, an opioid approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat severe pain, is the leading cause of drug overdose deaths in the United States.

According to the California Overdose Surveillance Dashboard, there were 7,385 opioid-related deaths in California in 2022, of which 6,473 were fentanyl-related.

San Francisco is one of the communities most acutely affected by drug overdoses, with 813 fatalities in 2023, of which 657 were attributed to fentanyl, according to data released by the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

“Fentanyl is deadlier than any drug we’ve ever seen on our streets,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said in a statement on Oct. 27. “We must treat the trafficking and sale of fentanyl more severely and people must be put on notice that pushing this drug could lead to homicide charges.”

Drug deaths in the United States hit a new record nationwide in 2022, with nearly 110,000 people dying as a result of the opioid crisis, according to data released by the National Center for Health Statistics which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Washington and Wyoming saw the biggest increases in drug fatalities, according to the agency. Both states suffered a 22 percent increase in deaths linked to overdose.

From NTD News

By Wes Goodman, Bloomberg Markets Live reporter and strategist

The US two-year breakeven rate is showing an eye-popping increase and will put upward pressure on yields.

Inflation expectations are climbing as the Fed’s fight against rising prices seems to be sputtering. The latest warning for bond investors came from Apollo Management Chief Economist Torsten Slok, who said that a re-accelerating US economy, coupled with a rise in underlying inflation, will prevent the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates in 2024.

The numbers tell the tale of a Fed battle against inflation that has yet to be won. Core PCE is the highest in almost a year. CPI and PPI both beat expectations.

All of this comes at a time when breakeven rates and yields are moving together more. This signals breakevens are asserting more influence on yields. The chart below shows the 30-day correlation between two-year breakeven rates and two-year yields is rising.

Bloomberg’s Correlation Finder shows that two-year breakeven rates are also moving largely in line with five- and 10-year yields, suggesting rising inflation expectations have the potential to buoy yields across maturities.

My theory is being put to the test today because Treasury yields are falling. Still, it’s worth keeping these risks in mind. The most potent warning from these breakevens came after they rose in 2019, 2020 and 2021. The Bloomberg US Treasury Total Return Index went on to tumble a stunning 12% in 2022, its biggest loss based on Bloomberg data going back to 1974 –- the year President Richard Nixon resigned and I turned 10 years old.

Authored by Megan Redshaw via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A recent study found that the majority of patients who suffered from long COVID during a time when vaccines and antiviral treatments were widely available were vaccinated.

The observational study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, researchers interviewed 390 people in Thailand who contracted COVID-19 during the “fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic” when the omicron variant was dominant. Patients were followed by phone from three months after their diagnosis for a year to monitor their physical condition, mental health, sleep disturbances, and quality of life.

Out of 390 people with COVID-19, 377 (97 percent) were vaccinated, 383 (98 percent) underwent antiviral treatment, and 330 (78 percent) developed long COVID syndrome. The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue and cough. Other reported symptoms included depression, anxiety, and poor sleep quality. The study found that patients under age 60 with a cough as an initial symptom were more likely to develop the condition. In a subset of patients with long COVID, researchers found a notable correlation in females with headaches, dizziness, and brain fog.

“Despite the extensive distribution of vaccines and antiviral therapies, the prevalence of long COVID remains high,” the authors of the paper wrote.

Although definitions of long COVID differ, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) broadly defines long COVID as “signs, symptoms, and conditions that continue to develop after acute COVID-19 infection” that can last for “weeks, months, or years.” The term “long COVID” also includes post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, long-haul COVID, and post-acute COVID-19.

According to the World Health Organization, while most people with COVID-19 recover and return to normal health, some patients, including those with mild illness, have symptoms that persist for weeks or months after recovering from acute illness.

Nearly 7 percent of U.S. adults surveyed by the CDC in 2022 said they’ve experienced long COVID. Although U.S. regulatory agencies claim vaccinating against COVID-19 can reduce the risk of developing long COVID, the current paper did not find a significant link between the presence of comorbidities or infection severity and the emergence of long COVID symptoms.

Studies Link Long COVID to Vaccination

A February report published by the CDC found that more than 8 percent of participants in seven U.S. states reported having experienced long COVID symptoms. In West Virginia, almost 11 percent of survey participants reported long COVID symptoms. However, the agency did not disclose whether survey respondents were vaccinated.

Some research suggests long COVID may be caused by an immune overreaction to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that COVID-19 vaccines use to induce antibodies and that vaccination causes some people to generate a second round of antibodies that target the first.

In a February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology, researchers analyzed the levels of spike protein and viral RNA in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with and without long COVID. They found that spike protein and viral RNA were more likely to be present in patients with long COVID.

In an August 2023 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers found the risk of long COVID was lower in those who had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the risk of getting long COVID did not differ by vaccination status. Researchers found that unvaccinated people infected with omicron had the lowest risk of long COVID.

In a 2023 study in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, researchers studied the serum of 81 individuals with long COVID. They found viral spike protein in one patient after the infection had cleared despite having a negative COVID-19 test, and vaccine spike protein in two patients two months after vaccination.

In a December 2022 study published in PLoS One, researchers found patients were more likely to experience long COVID if they had preexisting medical conditions, a higher number of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 illness, if their infection was more severe or resulted in hospitalization, or if they had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The Epoch Times contacted the CDC for comment.