In late 2016 the city of San Francisco attempted a sweeping boycott program aimed at building their public image as a leftist “Utopia” while also giving a middle finger to red state economies.  The project was called “Chapter 12X” and was authored by California state Senator Scott Wiener (pictured below).

Even though progressive boycotts have been consistently unsuccessful over the years, this did not stop them from making yet another attempt at the height of the Trump vs Clinton election frenzy.  Perhaps they believed the tide was shifting even further to the political left and they were getting ahead of the game.

The goal of San Francisco’s effort was to ban all city employees from doing business with companies based in states with policies and laws contrary to progressive dictates.  Companies in states with abortion restrictions, states that prevented “trans identifying people” from using the bathroom or locker room of their choice, states that required identification proving citizenship before voting, states that don’t obey the tenets of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion ideology, states that refused to implement climate change laws and companies that did not disclose carbon impact reports were not allowed to do contract business in San Francisco.  

For SF bureaucrats the assumption was that access to the city’s market was the prize and through a boycott they would teach red states a lesson.  In reality, SF was not the prize, efficient red state production was the prize.  Failure of the program became evident in 2023 after seven years of inflated costs from doing business with progressive friendly companies in blue states with high taxes and high operating overhead.  The city could have saved millions by simply outsourcing to red states. 

Another problem was the fact that many “blue” companies in blue states were not as “pure” as activists in SF wanted; most had associations with red state businesses, and this undermined the political message that the city wanted to send.

In the aftermath of a repeal on the boycott, San Francisco is trying to understand why their plan failed while also still trying to institute some kind of ideological filter on city business dealings.  Can SF find companies in red states that follow their progressive religion while also giving them low low prices?

The end of the contract ban is expected to decrease citywide expenditures by at least 20% in 2024 – In the midst of a stagflationary crisis every penny counts.  

The lesson to be learned here?  Democrats often argue that red states would collapse without blue state and blue city economies.  The truth is the exact opposite.  Without the production capabilities and lower costs of doing business in red states, progressive enclaves suffocate under the weight of their own taxes, legal restrictions and lack of self reliance.  They need conservatives far more than conservatives need them.  

By John Liu and Zheng Wu, Bloomberg Markets Live reporters and analysts

Three things we learned last week:

1. China stocks continued to rally as Beijing escalated its efforts to stabilize the market, starting just before the Lunar New Year. The benchmark CSI 300 index has climbed for nine straight days in the longest run of gains since 2018, taking its advance from a February low to about 10%.

The sudden replacement of the nation’s chief securities regulator underscored the leadership’s determination to stem a rout that has erased some $4 trillion from the market value of equities and undermined confidence in the economy.

Wu Qing, the new chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, got down to work right away by cracking down on short sellers, and even froze the accounts of a major quantitative hedge fund after it dumped $360 million of shares within a minute. Wu also sat down with retail and institutional investors to gather their opinions.

But, there is no room for complacency despite Wu’s initial success. His predecessor Yi Huiman had tried repeatedly to end China’s stock meltdown since last summer but failed to deliver a sustained recovery. History suggests that the selloff will resume if investors find that policy support is underwhelming.

2. Chinese lenders announced a larger-than-expected quarter point reduction in the five-year loan prime rate. The move was clearly aimed at supporting the housing market as the bulk of the nation’s $5.3 trillion outstanding mortgage loans use the rate as a pricing benchmark. New funding support was also made available for property projects placed on the authorities’ “white list.” To be clear, some traders thought the People’s Bank of China could have done more earlier. Authorities held the key one-year policy rate at 2.5% this month even as the 10-year government bond yield dropped to a two-decade low and consumer-price deflation persisted.

The PBOC may have been mindful of the yuan’s weakness and the squeeze on banks’ margins when it decided not to ease more aggressively. Given the competing factors at play, the central bank was probably looking to deploy the most effective stimulus without abandoning its restrained approach to supporting growth. The overall picture remains subdued. China’s home prices declined again in January, and car sales probably dropped 15.7% in February. Banks’ margins narrowed to a record low last quarter. All this shows that while the stock market has staged a strong rebound, it will take much more to revive the economy.

3. HSBC took a $3 billion impairment charge on its holding in a Chinese bank. The lender’s Hong Kong-listed stock underperformed the Hang Seng Index last week even after CEO Noel Quinn described the charge as “a technical accounting issue.” The financial impact should be limited to HSBC although the case served as a reminder of the potential pitfalls of having an exposure to Chinese assets. But as Bloomberg Intelligence noted, the impairment reflected China’s deteriorating economic outlook and shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

For years, radical leftists in legacy media and progressive think tanks have portrayed former President Trump as a racist unworthy of votes from black Americans.

However, as confidence in corporate media plummets to record lows, opinion polls indicate an increasing number of black folks are diverging from the Biden camp and considering backing the former president ahead of the elections this November. 

The latest poll by the Howard University Initiative on Public Opinion shows Biden’s support among black voters is tumbling, down to just 49%. At the same time, Trump’s support among black voters has surged to 26%, about three times the level compared with 2020 levels. 

“It’s African American men that are more likely to support the former president than their female counterparts,” Terri Adams-Fuller, director of the Howard University Initiative on Public Opinion, told media outlet WTOP. 

Adams-Fuller noted the largest concerns among black voters for Biden and Trump: 

“The top two concerns for Biden were age (38%) and then no concerns (17%). For Trump, it was morals/values (29%) and track record (28%).”

Nearly half of the respondents said their political leanings have shifted over the last five years. An overwhelming number of black voters said the economy/jobs and affordable housing income were some of the top issues for 2024. 

The Howard University poll comes as no surprise, considering we have documented several instances of the “rise of black support for Trump” and “Biden’s black support plummets from 2020.”

Journalist Paul D. Thacker commented on the poll on X. He said: “The media class will try hard to ignore this poll because they are up Biden’s ass and dismissive of voters.”

The media class will try hard to ignore this poll because they are up Biden’s ass and dismissive of voters. https://t.co/KXz0DJeC7H

— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) February 25, 2024

Musk chimed in, telling Thacker: “Among other things, Biden ushering in millions of illegals is disproportionately hurting Black communities.” 

Among other things, Biden ushering in millions of illegals is disproportionately hurting Black communities

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 25, 2024

Blacks are furious with Democrats for prioritizing illegals over their well-being. 

Black Chicago Resident EXPLODES at City Council Meeting over Migrant Crisis.🔥🔥🔥

“What’s happening is they’re emptying out the dregs of their jails into the United States, into our communities.” pic.twitter.com/CGhuJWjh6c

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) February 22, 2024

Blacks coming to the conclusion that their votes are no longer needed and their freebies and political favoritism have gone to illegals pic.twitter.com/VzOLnGqGO3

— Brian in WI (@CheeseheadBrian) February 17, 2024

Biden is destroying Black lives. With his 10-12 million illegals. Blacks have found out Biden has been lying the whole time. Using blacks while destroying their futures. pic.twitter.com/ekVBrxs4uh

— 🇺🇸 God Bless America 🇺🇸 (@RoyLovesAmerica) February 24, 2024

Blacks are awakening on illegals https://t.co/Ajf8mrI7X3

— Hélio A. Loureiro (@haloureiro) February 19, 2024

How I switch from a Democrat to a full on Republican pic.twitter.com/x47n34WRSH

— Malachi Maxey (@malachimaxeyusa) February 20, 2024

Radicals in the White House have sparked the greatest border invasion this nation has ever seen (count so far at 10 million), which is only hurting the poorest of citizens. 

Democrats need some soul-searching, or they risk losing an even more significant percentage of the black vote. What a disaster. 

By Blue Apples

With 7.3 million illegal immigrants entering into the country since Joe Biden was inaugurated as president, the national security threat of an unsecured border has become perhaps the biggest issue heading into the 2024 Presidential Election. The border crisis has even overshadowed a stagnant economy and foreign policy that has seen entangle itself in several theaters of war abroad. While the Biden administration brushes off this premise as a racist alt-right fever dream, the reality of that threat has come to affect everyday life for the average american. In its most recent whitewashing of the immigration crisis, the media establishment has all but entirely blacked out the murder Laken Riley, a 22-year old nursing student in Georgia. The lack of coverage about her murder is ostensibly because she was killed by an illegal immigrant who was able to enter the country due to the Biden administration’s open-border policy.

Riley was a junior enrolled at the Augusta University, studying in its nursing school. University authorities’ worst nightmares were realized when her body was discovered early Thursday afternoon following reports she had gone missing after going for a jog around the intramural sports fields 2.5 miles from the nearby University Of Georgia’s main campus in Athens where she had been a student until 2023. Riley’s body was identified by the Athens-Clarke County Coroner’s office on Friday morning. The coroner assigned blunt force trauma as the cause of death, according to University Of Georgia Police Chief Jeff Clark during a statement made following the identification of Riley’s body. During that announcement, Clark also announced that 26 year-old Venezuelan national Jose Antonio Ibarra had been arrested in connection with Riley’s murder.

Ibarra’s brother Diego was also arrested on Friday, though for charges unrelated to Riley’s murder. Diego Ibarra was taken into state custody although charged federally for possession of a fraudulent green card, a crime that likely facilitated his brother’s illegal immigration from Venezuela into the US where he took residence in Athens, GA. Diego Ibarra was arrested for the fake green card when he presented it to police who asked to speak to him because he matched the description of the suspect in Riley’s murder police took from campus security footage from where she went missing.

Friends, family, and the University Of Georgia mourned Riley’s death, lauding the young woman for her academic excellence and exceptional character. “She received her honorary white coat in August of 2023, symbolizing humanism, compassion, and the start of her nurse’s journey,” the university remarked. “Not only was she a bright and dedicated student, but she had the distinct honor of making the Fall 2023 Dean’s List.” A close connection to the Riley family released a statement regarding Laken’s death on their behalf which stated “Laken was an amazing daughter, sister, friend and overall person in general. Her love for the Lord was exemplified in every aspect of her life. She will be missed every day, but we promise to honor her life moving forward in a very big way,” the statement read, going on to say “During this most difficult time, we ask that you respect our privacy, and provide us the time and space necessary to grieve our daughter’s life that was tragically cut short.”

Subsequent to Ibarra’s arrest, campus police have recommended he be charged with felony murder, false imprisonment, kidnapping, and concealing the death of another. Despite the litany of charges being sought and the gruesome nature of Riley’s murder, police stated they believe that Ibarra’s crime was an isolated incident and that he was not a suspect in any other on-going investigations in the area. Police described the murder as a crime of opportunity and said there was no evidence that Ibarra had any underlying motive or that he knew Riley beforehand. “The evidence suggests that this was a solo act,” Clark stated, adding there were “no indications of a continuing threat to the community related to this case at this time.”

Although the tragedy of Riley’s murder is befitting of a true crime mystery series that Netflix would capitalize on in a heartbeat, her death has received little attention by their mainstream media cohorts. Despite the hours and hours of airtime dedicated to the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others who died in 2020 as a means of launching the country onto the cusp of an all out race war, Riley’s death defies mainstream narratives about the threat the US’ open border with Mexico and is thus verboten from the same kind of coverage.

When you vote, think of Laken Riley. Think of Mollie Tibets. Think of Kate Steinle. Think of Lizbeth Medina.

Think of all the innocent American lives we already lost due to open borders.

Think of how many we could save.

Do it for them. pic.twitter.com/oMSjFQf6hn

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 24, 2024

That media blackout obfuscates the reality that unfettered immigration into the US presents an innate threat to citizens. Since the 2021 fiscal year, Border Patrol has arrested 43,674 criminal non-citizens. US Customs And Border Protection defines the term criminal non-citizen as any individual who has been convicted of one or more crimes either in the US or abroad before behind interdicted by immigration officials. The metric also discounts criminal convictions abroad for crimes not illegal in the US. Of those 43,674 criminal non-citizens arrested, violent crimes accounted for over of their 8,000 preexisting convictions. Murder convictions related to 165 of those arrests, while sex crime convictions comprised nearly 10 times that amount with 1,210 having been documented by Border Patrol. Despite being on the books, these figures have received as little coverage by legacy media outlets as Riley’s murder has.

Although the media establishment remains silent about the murder of Laken Riley, it can do little to silence the uproar against the Biden administration’s manufactured immigration crisis. Even staunch supporters of the Democratic Party have come to express their disapproval of how the border is being handled amid approval ratings for Biden falling to all-time lows. What the coverage surrounding Riley’s murder reflects is that there are no lengths the mainstream media will go to in order to push the political agenda fueling the immigration crisis, proving that innocent American lives are little more than political capital when it comes to pushing that agenda.
 

Less than a day after she was smashed by Donald Trump in her own state, and four weeks after billionaire Democrat Reid Hoffman said ‘no more,’ the Koch brothers’ pet advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) have pulled the plug on Nikki Haley.

In an email to staff obtained by Politico AFP CEO Emily Seidel announced on Sunday that the group’s political arm, AFP Action, had to “take stock” of its spending priorities in light of Haley’s South Carolina defeat.

The group, which is funded by the Kochs, will now pivot to competitive Senate and House races.

“She has made it clear that she will continue to fight and we wholeheartedly support her in this effort,” Seidel wrote. “But given the challenges in the primary states ahead, we don’t believe any outside group can make a material difference to widen her path to victory.”

AFP Action’s decision is the latest blow to Haley’s longshot presidential bid, which has sustained losses in four early nominating states and the Virgin Islands, including on Saturday, when former President Donald Trump beat Haley in her home state by 20 points. Haley declared she will continue on in her primary fight, but has only committed to running through Super Tuesday on March 5. -Politico

The never-Trump Koch/AFP campaign has focused on convincing Republicans to vote for anyone but the former president. In late November, when it was clear Ron DeSantis wasn’t going to go the distance, the political funding network tapped Haley as their choice to take on Trump. Yet, despite reaching out to more than 3 million voters in early nominating and Super Tuesday states – and tossing millions into a fire for advertising, it made no difference.

That said, while another anti-Trump conservative group, Club for Growth, made peace with Trump, AFP maintains that Trump on the ballot will spell disaster for the GOP.

“If Donald Trump is at the top of the Republican ticket, the risk of one-party rule by a Democratic Party captured by the Progressive Left is severe and would do irreparable damage to the country,” according to Seidel’s Sunday note. “The last three election cycles have painted a very clear picture of what we can expect from voters who consistently rejected Donald Trump and his impact on the Republican party brand.”

She also brought up Trump’s legal woes in the context of Republicans underperforming, writing “And we should expect this to increase further as the criminal trials progress.”

Haley spokeswomaan Olivia Perez-Cubas thanked AFP for supporting the campaign, which she says has “plenty of fuel to keep going” and a “country to save.”

“AFP is a great organization and ally in the fight for freedom and conservative government,” said Perez-Cubas. “We thank them for their tremendous help in this race.”

Sorry Nikki, they’re just not into you.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

CHARLESTON, S.C.—Former President Donald Trump notched another decisive win in the Republican presidential primary, defeating former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley in her home state of South Carolina, where she also served as governor.

Given the lopsided polling in this two-person race between President Trump and Ms. Haley, the outcome of the Feb. 24 contest was never in doubt.

Yet the margin of victory and the trajectory of the race after this fourth presidential primary provide insights into the future of the 2024 nominating contest.

Trump Notches Highest Percentage in Contested Race So Far

President Trump called the result of the contest decisive shortly after the polls closed, and major media outlets called the race in his favor the moment the polls closed. In a message to supporters, he declared the result a “complete and total victory.”

Indeed, at about 60 percent of the vote as of 9:35 p.m. ET on Feb. 24, his share of the total was the highest of the three primaries in which he has faced opposition.

President Trump won the Iowa caucuses with 51 percent of the vote, beating three principal challengers, including Ms. Haley. She earned 19 percent of the vote.

In New Hampshire, President Trump bested Ms. Haley by 54 to 43 percent.

In the Nevada caucuses, President Trump was unopposed, garnering 99 percent of the vote.

Given the growing momentum of the Trump campaign and Ms. Haley’s inability to achieve a breakout result, the former president appears set to claim the nomination within weeks.

Yet despite losing three times to President Trump, Ms. Haley maintains that her ability to claim about 40 percent of the vote in two head-to-head contests indicates that Republican voters are seeking a Trump alternative.

“There are huge numbers of voters in our Republican primaries who are saying they want an alternative,” Ms. Haley told supporters at an after-election party.

But Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), one of Ms. Haley’s top advocates, saw it differently.

“The people spoke for Trump,” Mr. Norman told The Epoch Times after the results.

“What she will have to do … is make a decision.”

Asked about her future in the race after Super Tuesday, March 5, Mr. Norman said, “What she’ll do is count the delegates up.”

He added, “At the end of the day, everybody will come together, whether it’s [for] Nikki Haley or Donald Trump.”

Haley Loses Her Home State

Ms. Haley’s primary loss in her home state, where she was twice elected governor, is nearly unprecedented. Since the modern primary system began in 1972, no major-party candidate has claimed the nomination after losing his or her home state.

Ms. Haley’s defeat is partly attributable to President Trump’s overwhelming popularity in the state.

The former president handily won the 2016 primary in South Carolina and has remained popular. He garnered the lion’s share of endorsements from the state’s elected officials, including the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general, as well as U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, both Republicans.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) was the state’s only high-profile figure to endorse Ms. Haley.

Ms. Haley’s reputation as a governor is mixed among voters. To some, she is seen as a capable governor who provided outstanding crisis leadership.

“She was our governor during some of the darkest times we had. She led us well,” Ashley Brown, 43, of Moncks Corner, told The Epoch Times.

The state endured significant flooding during Ms. Haley’s tenure, and a mass shooting that claimed nine lives at a historic Black church in Charleston.

Other Republican voters were less impressed with Ms. Haley’s governance.

“I didn’t care for her when she was governor,” Richard Hinson, 58, of Moncks Corner, told The Epoch Times. “She’s just a career politician.”

Haley’s Chances Dim Further

Ms. Haley’s chances of winning the nomination, slim even before this contest, are now minuscule.

The Palmetto State has been something of a bellwether in the Republican nominating system, correctly forecasting the eventual nominee in every contest since 1980 with just one exception. The state went for Newt Gingrich in 2012.

More telling is the rate at which President Trump has collected committed delegates to the Republican National Committee’s July nominating convention.

To win the party’s nomination, a candidate must secure a commitment from 1,215 of the 2,429 delegates from the 50 states and various territories. After winning South Carolina, President Trump now has more than 130 delegates, more than six times the number held by Ms. Haley.

Another 1,215 delegates will be awarded on Super Tuesday, March 5, when 15 states hold primary elections or caucuses. If Ms. Haley is unable to gain a healthy share of those delegates, the race will effectively be over.

The latter half of March is when Ms. Haley is likely to acknowledge her campaign is over, according to Josh Putnam, a political science professor at the University of Georgia.

“Haley seems to suggest that she’s going to hang around at least through Super Tuesday, so if she dropped out after that, then it’s going to probably happen just before Trump passes the 50-percent mark and unofficially clinches the nomination,” Mr. Putnam said.

Crossover Voters Opt for Haley

Voter registration by party is not required in South Carolina, so any voter may choose to participate in either the Republican or Democratic primary, but not both.

Exit polls showed that 69 percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans, 21 percent as independents, 6 percent as something else, and 4 percent as Democrats.

Some crossover voters were apparently motivated by a desire to oppose President Trump. Others were simply pro-Haley.

“I’ve already voted for Nikki,” Kurt Kehelbeck, 64, of Charleston, told The Epoch Times, having cast his ballot during the early voting period. “I’m a Democrat. Anything’s better than Trump.” Mr. Kehelenbeck said he intends to vote for President Joe Biden in the general election.

Democratic leaders were aware that a number of their constituents intended to oppose President Trump by voting for Ms. Haley.

“I do know a significant amount of people … who are going to go with what they feel, and they have this feeling that they have to vote against Donald Trump,” Marcurius Byrd told The Epoch Times. Mr. Byrd of Columbia is the senior adviser to the Central Midlands chapter of South Carolina Young Democrats.

That number, 4 percent of the vote at most, was not a factor in deciding the race.

What does not appear to have materialized is a large crossover vote in support of President Trump as was predicted by South Carolina GOP Chair Drew McKissick.

“You will see a huge number, if not a majority, of self-identified Democrats who say that they voted for Donald Trump in this primary,” Mr. McKissick told The Epoch Times on Feb. 24.

Given the slight increase in Ms. Haley’s support versus polling predictions, it appears that she gained whatever benefit was to be had from crossover voting.

Spotlight Expands to Down-Ballot Races

With President Biden now unopposed for the Democratic nomination and President Trump all but certain to gain the Republican nod, attention will shift down the ballot to races for Congress and state legislatures.

On Super Tuesday, California, Texas, North Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas will hold general primaries and presidential polls.

Voters across the four Southern states will nominate candidates for 63 House districts, including 42 held by Republicans.

In California, seven of the 10 most hotly contested congressional races are for GOP-held seats. President Biden carried five of those districts in 2020. Four of them are rated as toss-ups by Cook Political Report.

In all, voters will select candidates for 115 congressional districts, representing more than a quarter of the House of Representatives, on March 5.

In the coming months, primaries will also be held for 34 Senate seats, 20 of which are held by Democrats, 11 by Republicans, and three by independents. Primaries will also be held for 11 gubernatorial elections, with eight of those seats currently held by Republicans.

Among the most watched congressional races will be the one for California’s 22nd district, held by Republican David Valadao, which the Democratic National Committee hopes to flip in 2024. Some 42 percent of registered voters in the 22nd district are Democrats, and just under 27 percent are Republicans.

California’s 27th congressional district, held by Republican Mike Garcia, is also on the Democratic National Committee’s hit list. Democrat George Whitesides is the strongest challenger. He is a former chief of staff at NASA and is CEO of Virgin Galactic.

California’s senatorial primary will also be closely watched. Primaries in the state are nonpartisan, meaning that all candidates compete on a single ballot, with the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election.

The leading candidates in this heavily Democratic state appear to be Democrats Adam Schiff and Katie Porter, both of whom currently represent House districts. Former professional baseball player Steve Garvey is the leading Republican candidate.

John Haughey, Janice Hisle, and Nathan Worcester contributed to this report.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis is reeling after evidence was submitted to the court suggesting that she and special prosecutor Nathan Wade lied about when their romantic relationship began.

To recap, Wade and Willis claimed that their relationship began sometime in early 2022 – after Willis hired Wade to help her go after Trump in the Georgia election interference case.

Wade’s cell phone records disprove their official story, however. As The Reactionary notes,

Trump’s attorneys were able to obtain, by subpoena to AT&T, Wade’s cell phone records from 1/1/2021 through 11/30/2021. Wade’s location data was analyzed by an investigator hired by the attorneys – an analytical tool which generated geolocation data that pinpointed Wade’s presence at DA Willis’s South Fulton Condo during that time period.

Here are the highlights:

• Wade and Willis exchanged “over 2000 voice calls and just under 12,000 texts messages” from January 1, 2021 through November 30, 2021.

• Geolocation data indicates Wade was at DA Willis’s condo “at least 35 occasions”. The data revealed he was “stationary” at the condo “and not in transit.”

• Wade’s visits to DA Willis’s condo were corroborated by texts and phone calls. According to the report: On November 29, 2021, “following a call from Ms. Willis at 11:32 PM, while the call continued, [Wade’s] phone left the East Cobb area just after midnight and arrived within the geofence located on the Dogwood address [the condo] at 12:43 AM on November 30, 2021. The phone remained there until 4:55 AM.”

• On September 11, 2021, Wade arrived at the condo address at approximately 10:45 PM. He left the address at 3:28 AM and arrived at his Marietta residence at 4:05 AM. He then texted DA Willis at 4:20 AM.

Now, Fani wants the evidence tossed – claiming that some of the data is inadmissible for technical or procedural reasons. Willis argued in a response that the cell phone data fails to “prove anything relevant,” and should be tossed because it contains “both telephone records that have not been admitted into evidence and an affidavit and other documents containing unqualified opinion evidence.”

Because of this, Willis argues that the court should exclude the new information, or at least consider her “rebuttal evidence that demonstrates the unreliability of the unqualified opinion evidence improperly introduced by Defendant Trump.”

She also claims that the new evidence is inadmissible because the defense counsel provided no written notice of its introduction, no summary of the expert’s testimony, and no information as to the expert’s qualifications. And even if he’s legit, the phone records don’t prove anything.

“The records do nothing more than demonstrate that Special Prosecutor Wade’s telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located,” she wrote, adding that the records may have even been obtained illegally.

Trump smacks Fani

In a Saturday post to Truth Social, Trump argued that the new evidence shows that Willis is full of shit and should be disqualified.

“Based on the fact that District Attorney Fani Willis and her Lover were together long prior to the filing date of their Fake Lawsuit against me and many other innocent people, despite their sworn testimony to the contrary, this case must be determined as OVER and, of no further force or effect,” he wrote.

“Among other things, in close coordination and conjunction with the DOJ and White House (numerous 8-hour meetings between the Biden people and them in D.C.!), this case was all about stealing close to $1 Million Dollars for Lover Wade, and Election Interference, whereby a vicious and heinous attack is made on Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent.”

Authored by John Leonard via AmericanThinker.com,

On MSNBC “award-winning investigative journalist” (from Politico) Heidi Przybyla said this recently:

Remember when Trump ran in 2016?  A lot of the mainline evangelicals wanted nothing to do with the divorced real-estate mogul who cheated on his wife with a porn star and all of that, right?  So what happened was, he was surrounded by this more extremist element.  You’re going to hear words like Christian Nationalism, like the new apostolic reformation.

These are groups that you should get very schooled on because they have a lot of power in Trump’s circle. And the one thing that unites all of them because there’s many different groups orbiting Trump but the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists — not Christians by the way, because Christian nationalist is very different — is that they believe their rights as Americans don’t come from any earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, they don’t come from the Supreme Court, they come from God.

Horrors!  Does this mean that a Christian nationalist believes what the Declaration of Independence said — that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come not from King George III, but from our Creator?  How does that separate a Christian nationalist from any other ordinary Christian?  What is she trying to say?

Ms. Przybyla continued:   

The problem is that they are determining, man — men — are determining what God is telling them. And in the past, that so-called natural law … it’s a pillar of Catholicism, for instance, and has been used for good. In social justice campaigns, Martin Luther King evoked it talking about civil rights. But now you have an extremist element of conservative Christians who say this applies specifically to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and it’s going much further than that, as you’re seeing for instance in the ruling in Alabama. The judge is connected to a dominionist faction.

So I wanted to pull the more extended clip of this because surely the reporter clarified. But actually, it gets worse. She confuses mainline and mainstream evangelicalism (the former are liberal denominations). And says these Christians want to apply natural law to marriage,… https://t.co/GTrUIHTKYT pic.twitter.com/Svl5kewNqi

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) February 23, 2024

Um…what?  Is Ms. Przybyla trying to say that mainstream Christians support abortion rights and gay marriage, but Christian nationalists do not?

She was referring to the Alabama Supreme Court, which just ruled that human life begins at conception.  How dare the court agree with basic biology and the American College of Pediatricians?  According to a publication by the National Library of Medicine, eighty percent of Americans believe that biologists are the most qualified group to determine when life begins, and ninety-six percent of biologists affirm the view that life begins at fertilization, yet a portion of the American public still demand the right to legally murder their unborn children.

Does a Christian automatically qualify as some sort of religious zealot simply for opposing abortion?  What if he doesn’t oppose the “Plan B” pill?  Can a Christian be patriotic without being called a nationalist?  Can a Christian still sing the patriotic anthem “God Bless America”?  

What is a Christian nationalist?  We still don’t have a real answer.  Perhaps it would be helpful to break the term down into individual words to understand it better.

If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you’re a Christian.  Okay, then…so what is a nationalist?  According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, a nationalist is a person who wants his country to be politically independent, or a person who strongly believes that his country is better than others.

Putting the two terms together, we get a follower of Jesus Christ who strongly believes that America is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.  And that’s the problem?

Oh, wait a minute — one of the Alabama justices is accused of being a dominionist.  This is, apparently, a person who seeks to create a nation governed by Christians according to their understanding of biblical law.  Is the justice a dominionist because he quoted from the Bible instead of a biology textbook?  Both basically say the same thing on this issue.

Most Christians I know (and I know more than a few through social media) realize that America was founded not as a Christian nation, but as a secular nation founded by Christians with Christian principles.  Muslims, Jews, and atheists alike have been welcome to participate in our secular government that still operates on Christian principles. 

Obviously, the term “Christian nationalist” is meant to be seen as a pejorative.  It is being used to separate the “good” Christians (those who support abortion and gay marriage) from the bad Christians (actual Christians).  It is a term intended to divide and conquer.

The current problem for those attempting to employ the term to accomplish their nefarious goal of turning Christians on one another is that most people don’t seem to know what a Christian nationalist is.

According to Pew research, roughly twenty-four percent of the American public had a negative opinion of Christian nationalism and predictably said things like, “It is a euphemism for racism and antisemitic fascism; a polite term for a Nazi sympathizer” — but still, more than half of U.S. adults have never even heard of the term.

One of the Christian respondents to the survey shared a starkly different opinion: “It’s a term used to dismiss any Christian because they are dangerous, therefore dehumanize them and make them the enemy.  It should mean a follower of Christ and someone who is patriotic.”

Why was it so important for the Politico reporter to establish that the modern existential threat to the American republic is this largely unheard of “Christian nationalist” movement?  Because this same “journalist” co-authored an article saying that the Trump administration is going to infuse Christian nationalist ideas into their policies because a guy named Russell Vought is under consideration to become Trump’s chief of staff.

If you don’t remember Vought, he’s the guy who famously sparred with Bernie Sanders when Sanders tried to apply a religious litmus test to disqualify Vought from an appointment to the Office of Management and Budget.  According to Ms. Przybyla’s most recent article, “Vought has a close affiliation with Christian nationalist William Wolfe, a former Trump administration official who has advocated for overturning same-sex marriage, ending abortion and reducing access to contraceptives.”

Well, then!  We should burn him at the stake like a heretic, right?  No way should this guy be allowed to serve in the next Trump administration…unless, of course, Trump wants him.

Every Christian (nationalist) should utter just four words sure to send a cold chill through the heart of Ms. Przybyla and her ilk: Make America Great Again.

*  *  *

John Leonard is a freelance writer.  He blogs at southernprose.com.  His books, including The God Conclusion and Atheist’s Prayer, can be found at LeonardBooks.net.

This weekend has seen large tumultuous anti-Netanyahu protests in Tel Aviv led by the families of hostages and victims of Oct. 7. The families have long demanded that the government get more serious about another hostage/prisoner exchange. They’ve accused the prime minister of intentionally thwarting a deal for the sake of prolonging the war and in turn prolonging his hold on power.

The scene grew violent Saturday as riot police on horseback charge demonstrators in a central Tel Aviv square. Police also used water canons against the protesters. Watch some of the mayhem unfold in the below:

Acc to the west, Israel is the most democratic state in the ME:

Israeli police whips a protestor in the face during anti-Netanyahu protests in Tel Aviv. pic.twitter.com/Ns5zMsCTH0

— HK (@HKX07) February 24, 2024

Netanyahu tried to calm the rising anger directed against him by a statement on X saying, “We are working to obtain another outline for the release of our hostages.” He added, “That is why I sent a delegation to Paris – and tonight we will discuss the next steps in the negotiations.”

Israeli media once again reports ‘cautious optimism’ regarding ceasefire talks, but Netanyahu has at the same time been insistent on rejecting Hamas’ “delusional” conditions for a deal – most especially the demand for all Israeli forces to withdraw from the Strip.

At least 21 people were arrested in Saturday’s demonstration, with some injuries among the protesters also reported. It’s a sign that such demonstrations are about to get more violent.

Relatives of the kidnap victims believe a deal is realistic and obtainable, and have held out hope of their loved ones being returned to Israel. There’s still over one hundred Israelis held in Gaza – though many could be deceased at this point.

On Sunday, the country’s former prime minister Ehud Barak added fuel to the anti-Netanyahu fire, however, by urging an escalation in protests until Netanyahu is forced to step down. According to Al Jazeera:

Ehud Barak says Israelis need to protest outside their parliament “day and night” to help bring an end to Netanyahu’s rule.

Barak, who served as Israel’s prime minister from 1999 to 2001, added that demonstrations should go on “until Netanyahu understands that his time is up and the public no longer trusts him”.

“When the state is shut down, Netanyahu will realize his time is up,” he told Army Radio, as reported by the Jerusalem Post newspaper.

In Sunday comments Netanyahu said his cabinet is mulling various options for Rafah, and said if a deal can be reached with Hamas the assault will be delayed. However he warned that if there is no deal, then a full-scale ground offensive will proceed. Earlier comments by Israeli officials suggested a timeframe of early March for an attack, as the US has continued to pressure the military to allow Gaza civilians to evacuate first.

There are an estimated 1.5 million – mostly internally displaced civilians – in Rafah currently, after most were pushed out of their homes in the north amid the Israeli operation that began after the Oct.7 terror attack by Hamas.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

The Game of “Chicken” in Today’s World

I’ve been thinking a lot about the game of “chicken” lately. The “game” where two people drive at each other, effectively “daring” each other to swerve out of the way or not.

Maybe this fixation was triggered by all the 40th anniversary of “Footloose” messages I saw on social media. Since I cannot dance to save my life (I have absolutely no rhythm), I just remember the game of chicken played with farm equipment.

But the reality is that the game of chicken can apply to so many things: geopolitically, politically, and even in markets as of late. Certainly every time someone mentions “drawing lines in the sand,” which is happening a lot, I think of the game of chicken. We will attempt to look at a few things through the “chicken” lens:

• Russia and Ukraine.

• The Middle East.

• Fighting the Magnificent 7.

• The Chinese stock market.

But first, let’s think about the game of chicken a little bit more.

The Game Theory of “Chicken”

Chicken is a great way to start thinking in terms of game theory. The game itself seems quite simple:

• Only 2 actors.

• Only 1 choice each actor can make.

• An obvious and immediate consequence of those actions.

It is so simple (yet far more interesting) from a game theory perspective.

The analysis begins with this simple board:

There are 4 possible outcomes. The first obvious step is to assign some “values” to these outcomes. Let’s use a scale of -10 to 10, with -10 being extremely bad and 10 being extremely good.

The “easiest” square to fill in seems to be the one in which neither side swerves. That ends in flames and death. So, let’s call it -10.

Both swerving is not really a win. You avoid flames and death, but you could have won, since the other side swerved. Let’s call this a -1. It is mildly annoying that you didn’t win, but no real consequences.

If you don’t swerve and the opponent swerves, you “won.” But what did you win? Some satisfaction, but I think it is obvious that you didn’t win as much as you lose if you really lose. So, let’s say you call a win a 5.

Similarly, if you swerve and your opponent doesn’t, you have “lost” pride more than anything. To make this a bit symmetric, to start, let’s assign a -5 to this outcome.

After this initial “analysis,” here is how “you” are thinking about the game.

You can see that it is asymmetric, at least with the values we’ve assigned.

Swerving limits how bad the outcome could be (worst case of -5 versus -10). If your opponent was equally likely to swerve or not swerve, your “expected” outcome of swerving is slightly worse than not swerving, as it is -3 vs -2.5.

Aside from telling us that this is a stupid game to get involved in (the expected values are negative no matter what decision you make), we “know” our opponent is not random and is likely engaging in a similar decision process. For starters, let’s assume that their outcome function is the same as ours (this is called “mirroring” in the intelligence world, and is often a mistake).

Two things come out of this step:

• Are you really sure about the values you have assigned to the outcomes? Maybe on a cursory initial thought, they made sense, but are they true?

• Not just for yourself, but for your opponent as well.

If your tendency is to reduce the tail risk (the -10 outcome), then you would tend to swerve. However, if you think your opponent thinks like you do, they may also have that tendency, allowing you to possibly “win” by not swerving.

The already simple game has become more complex.

There is no reason to believe that your opponent’s reaction function is the same as yours.

That concept of “mirroring” is problematic. Let’s assume, for the moment, that you went back and reviewed your valuations and are comfortable with them (easier said than done). Then your decision will ultimately be influenced by what you really believe your opponent believes.

What if flames and death isn’t viewed as a -10 by your opponent? What if they have some reason to view that as “only” a -8? What if “bravado” or something is an important feature of your opponent, and they place greater weight on “winning” and view the outcomes where they swerve with greater disdain?

In this scenario, your opponent seems far less likely to swerve. Their “downside” is only the difference between -8 and -6. Their “expected” outcome (assuming you were 50/50 on what to do) is -4.5 if they swerve, versus -1 if they don’t swerve. You, in your analysis, probably have to start assuming the opponent is unlikely to swerve, skewing your expected outcome calculations much more in the direction of swerving (because you believe your opponent is less likely to swerve).

Winning The Game of “Chicken”

We could play with a variety of scenarios, but one theory in the game of chicken is that if you can demonstrate an inability to “swerve” you “should” win.

The example that my professor used was you make a big show of dropping a concrete block on the accelerator, tying the steering wheel into position, and then sticking your hands and feet out of the window – clearly demonstrating that you cannot swerve. The opponent, if they believe you won’t panic at the last moment, has to assume you won’t swerve. In which case, unless they have dramatically different outcome values, they should swerve.

But enough about the game theory of chicken and let’s get back to the 4 things that we came to discuss.

Russia and Ukraine

As we enter the third year of this war, the U.S. is debating what level of support to provide Ukraine.

From a “game of chicken” perspective, I think that Ukraine has already lost. Assuming that we get through this year’s process, it would seem logical for Putin to decide that next year might be the year funding doesn’t get approved. Yes, something decisive could happen during the U.S. elections, but November is a long way away right now. Putin’s logical conclusion would be to drag this out, and hope that next year, funding fails.

If the U.S. wanted Ukraine to “win” this war, it should approve a massive 5-year spending plan, that cannot be easily undone after the election. That would change Putin’s calculus. He doesn’t get the “free option” of thinking that the U.S. might tire of its spending.

For now, I expect this war to drag on.

As the U.S. election nears, both Zelensky and Putin will have to play their own games of chicken with the election results.

If it looks like a Trump/Biden rematch will be close at the polls in November, both Russia and Ukraine may gravitate towards a truce of some sort. The Ukrainians face existential risks if the outcome will ensure that funding will dry up. The Russians, as the “bad actors” in the area, can always go back to war if they like the outcome of the election, but since they are also tiring of this war that they seem incapable of winning, some sort of deal should make sense to them as well.

Status quo for now, with all parties keeping a close eye on the U.S. election.

The Magnificent 7

If I had a dollar for every time NVDA was mentioned this week, I’d have a LOT of $$$$$$s!

We went into this week having written A Retrospective of All-Time Highs on February 11th and A Market “Only a Mother” Could Love on February 19th. After the NVDA earnings came out, we published NVDA Crushes It, Nasdaq 100 Still Lower Than Friday early on Thursday.

The title of that latest report didn’t age well as stocks not only gapped higher on the open but continued their relentless push higher. On the other hand, for all the hype, all the excitement, and all the jubilation, I’m not sure who holds the winning hand right now – the bulls or the bears?

Given the excitement and hype, no one can be blamed for realizing that even with all the hoopla, the Nasdaq 100 was only higher than where it had been back on February 9th for a brief window and that didn’t occur until Friday!

Yes, if you have been fighting the market and the so-called Mag 7 for a year, it has been an epic failure. If you got in more recently and covered any shorts at all after the 3% to 5% pullback ahead of the now fabled earnings, you are probably sitting in pretty good shape!

But that isn’t the game of chicken I came to talk about.

When I look at QQQ (a Nasdaq 100 ETF with a transparent portfolio), you see that MSFT is 8.8% of that index. AAPL 8.2%. NVDA 5.6%. META and Broadcom and the two classes of Alphabet are also around 5%.

So, the game of “chicken” that I think is being played out is among active managers who are underweight those stocks relative to the index that gets so much attention (and, more importantly, the allocations).

Some managers are restricted to 5% or less in their portfolio by their own rules. But even managers who don’t have rules may find it “uncomfortable” owning so much of a stock (especially ones that have performed extremely well, outstripped the market, and have some metrics that seem to push the boundaries on some “traditional” rule of thumb valuation metrics).

How many managers have some of these stocks as their largest positions, but are still underweight relative to the indices?

That is the game of chicken that is being played out in real time. In many ways, whether we see a “capitulation” into market weight on these names, or not, will determine the next move. I find it difficult to believe, even after Thursday, that many who are underweight will change their minds now.

I’m staying bearish the market here. I will “buy the dips” but by that I mean cover some shorts, only to reload higher, but I am a fully committed U.S. equity bear here. While there is no obvious catalyst to a big move lower, I’m not sure what the catalyst higher is as we move away from the last vestiges of post-NVDA earnings trading.

On Friday, I did overhear someone on Bloomberg point out that large rallies into new highs (like we had on Thursday/Friday) have been a precursor to large downward moves in the past. I don’t have the details on that report, but I’d like to see it, as it fits my needs well!

Dancing With Myself

Since I cannot keep a beat, but enjoy dancing, I find that I have to dance to the 5 songs that seem to be at the beat I dance to. Ironically, or weirdly, or just strange, is that one of those songs is “Dancing with Myself” by Billy Idol. Anyways, felt compelled to share how I would try to “win the game of chicken” on the dance floor!

Don’t Fight the CCP

We all know that you Don’t Fight the Fed! It probably should be the first three chapters of any credible finance textbook right now. But, many seem comfortable fighting the Chinese Communist Party.

That just seems weird to me. While I don’t think China is investible longer-term (from either the asset management side of things or the corporate side of things), I think that it is tradable. Over time I don’t think the CCP will be good to foreign investors, but right now, I want to be overweight Chinese equities (overweight or max long, as my “normal” weighting to China is 0.0%).

Chinese stocks (based on FXI, an ETF that is easily accessible) are at levels that required a “crisis” to achieve in the past (post-GFC and post-COVID). While I don’t like the demographics in China, I do not think they will reclaim their role as an “industrial hub” of America and Western Europe, and while I don’t think they will treat foreign investors well, I think there are several reasons to own some Chinese shares right now.

As you all know, or anyone who has been reading the T-Report for the past year knows, I am all about the transition from “Made in China” to “Made by China.” Chinese brands will attempt to sell more and more of their products globally – with Emerging Market countries (where China has a trade deficit) as the focal point. I view it more as a threat to our companies, but it should help their companies. But that isn’t the main driver of things right now. I think it is quite simple:

1. China, and especially the CCP, needs to keep the middle class at least somewhat happy. We saw how quickly some protests over COVID turned China’s COVID policy around. The CCP wants to retain power, and while “suppression” is one of their tools, so is “appeasement.”
2. I think that the “mistake” many are making is that we are “mirroring” (to China) what we are used to in response to financial market and economic weakness domestically. The reality is that most of the time, the Fed is the only game in town. While D.C. acted relatively quickly and aggressively in response to COVID, the central bank has usually done the heavy lifting here. So far, the Bank of China has not been as aggressive as we would have expected if they were serious about getting the market to bounce. But I think that is where we are making a mistake. I expect China and the CCP to have a multi-pronged approach. They will attack the problem from many angles.
3. One pertinent point is that “normally” I laugh at efforts to restrict short selling. Yeah, you have to run for the hills briefly, but you know it will just take out the short base (which will become a dip buyer) and markets will find ways to short the things anyways (either through proxies, or some other vehicle or mechanism) and things will get worse again. I do not think that with respect to China’s efforts to restrict selling and short selling. “Where there is a will, there is a way” applies to China here.

So, in this game of chicken, I’m staying long Chinese stocks.

I couldn’t resist and I cherry picked the start date of Feb 2nd. For the month of February, FXI has done well versus the Nasdaq 100, but all we hear about is being bullish big tech/Mag 7 and bearish China. I think that is a lot like what we saw start in early November. Back then, the “laggards” had started to outperform, but it was ignored for several weeks until the trend was well in place, and only then did people jump on the bandwagon.

Nasdaq versus FXI seems like a losing game of chicken, but I highly suspect that positioning and news flow is on my side.

The Middle East

There are so many horrific “games of chicken” being played in the Middle East that I don’t know where to begin. So I won’t. I will focus on the one that I think is most important for financial markets.

That is Iran versus the U.S. Many see the two countries sitting across a chess board and moving pieces around. I see two drivers all geared up. So far away, that they look like specks on the horizon to each other. But they are travelling on a collision course and are gaining speed.

The biggest risk for markets is that the U.S. feels compelled to stop Iranian oil shipments. There are far worse things going on for people in the region, but the one thing that I think would move markets dramatically would be if the U.S. feels that they need to stop the Iranian flow of oil. That may be a relatively high hurdle (Russia still sells oil, after all), but would be the one that would send shockwaves through the market.

It is also the one game of chicken where I am incredibly fearful that we are not playing chicken properly!

1. I don’t think we understand the other side’s outcome table very well. I am incredibly concerned that we are “mirroring” our own values when we think about their decisions. That would potentially be a big mistake.
2. More importantly, and this is the first time we’ve discussed this, I think that we think how they think about us is wrong. That is incredibly confusing, but I think it is correct. We are trying to portray an image of power. Don’t cross this line or we will do this! And so far, we have done this. I think that the U.S. believes it has been successful in establishing fear. That the escalate to de-escalate strategy is working (see Escalation and Expansion). I am concerned that they think if they prod that line a few more times, we will “swerve.” That we don’t really have the stomach to not swerve. We are trying to convince them that we place a much higher value on not swerving than they believe we really have. I think that may be correct.

This is a game of chicken with real life consequences, and it is far from over.

Bottom Line

Maybe Goldilocks is here, but I think that the bears are quite comfortable right now too. Lots of head-to-head battles, figuratively and literally.

From a positioning standpoint:

• 10-year to trade into the 4.4% to 4.6% range.
• Start thinking about 2 cuts this year, rather than 4. The dot plot could surprise.
• Be very cautious on risk here. Equities and the big winners in particular.
• Still undecided on CRE and the banking space.
• Credit will hold in better than other asset classes but will be pushed around by equity risk and if I’m right, expect a widening in credit spreads.

In any case, it will be curious what phrase takes over the airwaves this week, though I suspect it will still be AI.