Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has continued to be a thorn in Israel’s side, as well as the NATO alliance, given that on Friday he was in Germany and aggressively denounced Israel’s military operation against Hamas and Gaza.

Erdogan made things awkward for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz while the two hosted a joint press conference in Berlin. The Turkish leader not only reiterated his calls for an immediate ceasefire, but went so far as to say that what Israel is doing is against the Jewish religion.

He denounced attacks on children and civilians in hospitals as being contrary to the Jewish holy book. “Shooting hospitals or killing children does not exist in the Torah, you can’t do it,” Erdogan said. He then highlighted the large and growing casualties among Palestinian women, children and elderly, and even mentioned attacks on churches.

“Does Israel target hospitals, houses of worship and churches? Yes, it does. I, as a Muslim, am disturbed by this,” he said, as translated by Turkish media. He then called out Western leaders for failing to condemn such brazen human rights abuses, again with Scholz standing uncomfortably right beside him. 

Erdogan further made things awkward by referencing an ultra-sensitive subject for Germans: 

Erdogan suggested that Germany was unable to criticize Israel because of the Holocaust.

“I speak freely because we do not owe Israel anything. If we were indebted, we could not talk so freely,” he said. “Those who are indebted cannot talk freely. We did not go through the Holocaust, and we are not in such a situation.”

He also claimed Israel’s actions were against Judaism.

He further held out the possibility that Turkey could mediate peace – which remains highly unlikely given the current soaring tensions in Israel-Turkey relations which recently witnessed the mutual withdrawal of ambassadors and tit-for-tat verbal denunciations.

“As Türkiye, our goal is to facilitate an atmosphere in which Palestinians and Israel peacefully coexist,” he said.

Erdogan has also been harping on Israel’s secretive nuclear arsenal, saying the world must demand that it be officially disclosed, while also vowing to send Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes. 

Sad day for Germany. Knowing what Erdogan is capable of saying, I would not have taken this meeting. And yet, the Biden administration is mulling over whether to invite him to the White House. I would caution folks at State, NSC to advise against this. 100% avoidable pic.twitter.com/61H0bJXhNA

— Sinan Ciddi (@SinanCiddi) November 17, 2023

Scholz, however, in the same press conference was unmoved: 

In response to a journalist’s question about whether Germany would support legal action against Israel’s ongoing war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza, Scholz said Israel’s “right to self-defense must not be called into question.”

Scholz traveled to Israel to offer Germany’s unconditional and unwavering support after the Oct. 7 attacks.

Erdogan’s commentary sparked immediate controversy among German leaders:

Those and similar comments have appalled politicians across the spectrum in Germany. Scholz has described Erdogan’s accusations against Israel as “absurd.”

“It’s no secret that we have, in parts, very different views on the current conflict,” Scholz said at a brief news conference alongside Erdogan before their talks. But “particularly at difficult moments, we need to speak directly to each other.”

‘We don’t owe them anything’ Erdogan hits Germany unable to criticise Israel because of the Holocaust
Video Credit @ShanghaiEye pic.twitter.com/NeyhDhOas0

— Zhang Heqing (@zhang_heqing) November 18, 2023

Germany is also among European countries which have a large Muslim and especially Turkish population. Major pro-Palestinian protests have erupted there. One point of rare agreement between Turkey and Germany during Erdogan’s visit was the need for a two state solution.

In the meantime, Erdogan’s Turkey will continue to be a foreign policy outlier in the NATO alliance – and the Turkish president certainly won’t be receiving a state invitation to visit Washington or London anytime soon. And yet, there are reports that the White House has actually been mulling such a visit.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace has become the latest jurist to reject the effort to bar former president Donald Trump from the ballot under the novel 14th Amendment theory.

I have long been a vocal critic of the theory, which I view as historically and legally unfounded. I also view it as arguably the most dangerous theory to arise in decades.

While Wallace reached the right conclusion, she committed, in my view, fundamental errors in her analysis on the free speech elements of the case.

The case involves a chilling effort of Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold to use her office to prevent voters from being able to cast their ballots for Trump, one of the leading candidates for the presidency. Like other challengers, she claimed to be protecting democracy by denying voters the ability to vote for their preferred candidate on the basis of this dubious theory. Polls show Trump and Biden in a statistical dead heat at 42% (Biden) to 38% (Trump) which is within the margin of error.

Judge Wallace rejected the use of the amendment to prevent voters from voting for Trump in the 2024 election, declaring that “[t]he Court holds there is scant direct evidence regarding whether the presidency is one of the positions subject to disqualification.”

In her 102-page ruling, Wallace declared that “[a]fter considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that ‘officers of the United States’ did not include the President of the United States. It appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section 3 did not intend to include a person who had only taken the Presidential Oath.”

Accordingly, “[t]he Court orders the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5, 2024,”

The scope of the provision is one of the inherent questions presented by this theory. There is also the problem with the limitation of Section 3 to those “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” It then adds that that disqualification can extend to those who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” These challengers argue that Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” and Trump gave “aid and comfort” to those who engaged in it by spreading election fraud claims and not immediately denouncing the violence.

Most of the public do not agree with that assessment. In polling, most view Jan. 6 for what it was: a protest that became a riot. One year after the riot, a CBS News poll showed that 76 percent viewed it for what it was, as a “protest gone too far.” The view that it was an actual “insurrection” was far less settled, with almost half rejecting the claim, a division breaking along partisan lines.

On Jan. 6, I was contributing to the coverage and denounced Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. But as the protest increased in size, some of us noted that we had never seen such a comparatively light level of security precautions, given the weeks of coverage anticipating the protest. We then watched as thinly deployed police barriers were overrun and a riot ensued. It was appalling, and most of us denounced it as it was unfolding. However, it was not a rebellion or insurrection in my view.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 and many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers. That was a real rebellion in which hundreds of thousands died.

While Judge Wallace reached the right result, I have major qualms with her analysis.

She states as a fact that Trump was guilty of incitement, a charge that no prosecutor has ever brought against him. That includes the D.C. Attorney General who announced his intention to pursue such charges. It also includes Special Counsel Jack Smith who threw every other possible criminal charge against Trump.

Nevertheless, Judge Wallace concludes that Trump “incited imminent lawless violence.”

She further found that:

“[i]n addition to his consistent endorsement of political violence, Trump undertook efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election well in advance of the election, making accusations of widespread corruption, voter fraud, and election rigging.”

As such, she finds that his speech was not protected by the First Amendment. While I am a critic of Trump’s speech and actions on that day, I still believe that the the court is completely wrong on the First Amendment.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.

The fact is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress.

He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump also stated:

“Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

He ended his speech by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to “try and give our Republicans, the weak ones … the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” Such marches are common — on both federal and state capitols — to protest or to support actions occurring inside.

As I have discussed previously, the Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg referred to a planned march on Congress after declaring that “revengeance” could be taken for the betrayal of the president and Congress. The Supreme Court nevertheless overturned his conviction. Likewise, in Hess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets, holding that “at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one official declared, “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.” That was ruled as the hyperbolic language of advocacy.

Judge Wallace dismissed such arguments and holds that “while Trump’s Ellipse speech did mention “peaceful” conduct in his command to march to the Capitol, the overall tenor was that to save the democracy and the country the attendees needed to fight.”

The decision comes just days after another defeat in Michigan for advocates of this theory.

Had Wallace used this analysis to find in favor of disqualification, I believe that she would have been eventually reversed. As it stands, we will have to wait to see if Griswald has the confidence of her convictions to appeal. I hope that she does. We need to put this insidious legal theory to rest with the finality and clarity of a Supreme Court decision.

Here is the opinion: Anderson v. Griswald

Stacey Abrams’ brother-in-law was arrested in Tampa on human trafficking charges involving a minor.

Jimmie Gardner, a well-known Georgia-based youth motivational speaker, is accused of human trafficking, lewd or lascivious touching, and battery. This development adds a dark chapter to Gardner’s already tumultuous life story, marked by a wrongful conviction and later exoneration.

Gardner was arrested following a disturbing incident at a Hillsborough County hotel. According to the Tampa Police Department, Gardner invited a 16-year-old girl to his hotel room in the early hours of Friday, offering to pay her for sexual acts. The situation rapidly deteriorated when the girl, after initially agreeing, decided against it and informed Gardner of her change of heart.

What transpired next, as per the police report, was an altercation that escalated to physical violence. Gardner is alleged to have choked the girl during the argument, a serious charge that underscores the severity of the situation.

Police say Gardner invited the girl to his hotel room around 1:43 a.m. Friday. Once there, he offered to pay her in “exchange for sexual acts,” according to a Friday news release from the Tampa Police Department. The girl agreed, but later told Gardner that she had changed her mind.

Police say Gardner became angry and told her to leave.

The two had started arguing when Gardner put his hands around the girl’s neck and choked her, according to the release. Gardner then left the hotel room and the girl called 911. –Tampa Bay Times

Following the incident, Gardner reportedly turned himself in at the Tampa police headquarters, leading to his arrest and subsequent booking into Orient Road Jail, where he is being held without bond.

Why are so many elected Democrats related to pedophiles or pedophiles themselves?

Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley wrote in her diary about how her dad took naked showers with her and molested her as a kid. Now he’s in the White House.

Now we know Biden was about to appoint the… https://t.co/ZJcGNvgNmV

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) November 18, 2023

Gardner, once a promising baseball player drafted by the Chicago Cubs and playing in the minor leagues was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1987, leading to 27 years of imprisonment before his exoneration in 2016.

Following his release, Gardner has enjoyed success as a motivational speaker – however this arrest raises numerous questions, not just about Gardner’s personal conduct, but also about the broader issues of human trafficking and exploitation. It casts a shadow on his past efforts to empower youth and advocate for positivity, highlighting a complex and tragic juxtaposition between his public persona and the allegations he now faces.

h/t Colin Rugg

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Can an economy in which 10% of the households qualify as middle class claim to offer widespread opportunities for secure prosperity? No, it cannot.

Defining the middle class is a perpetually popular parlor game because it’s well-known that the foundation of widespread prosperity is a broad-based middle class and a sturdy ladder of social mobility that enables those below the middle class to work their way up to middle class security.

Here’s an example of a typical trope on the subject: What Does It Take To Be Middle Class?

The topic is also a perennial favorite because the middle class is losing ground. By basic measures of income, it’s slipped from 60% of the populace to 50%.

A strong case can be made that assessed by characteristics of middle class security and prosperity rather than income, the middle class has effectively shrunk to 10% of households as only the top 30% of households earn enough to afford what was within reach of the top 60% in decades past.

By definition, the top 20% cannot be “middle class.” The top 20% is comprised of the upper-middle class, the wealthy and the super-wealthy (the 80% to 95% bracket, top 5% and the top 1%).

Attempting to define the middle class by income alone is futile due to regional differences in costs and purchasing power. $100,000 annual household income that will barely pay rent and necessities in a major metro city can stretch considerably further in smaller cities far from high-cost zones.

Regardless of income, households that are living paycheck to paycheck don’t qualify as middle class if we qualify “middle class” by these characteristics:

In Why the Middle Class Is Doomed (April 2012) I listed five “threshold” characteristics of membership in the middle class:

1. Meaningful healthcare insurance (i.e. not phantom coverage that only kicks in after thousands of dollars are paid in cash).

2. Significant equity (25%-50%) in a home or other real estate.

3. Income/expenses that enable the household to save at least 6% of its net income.

4. Significant retirement funds: 401Ks, IRAs, etc.

5. The ability to service all debt and expenses over the medium-term if one of the primary household wage-earners lose their job.

I then added a taken-for-granted sixth:

6. Reliable vehicles for each wage-earner that are fully covered by insurance.

Author Chris Sullins suggested adding these additional thresholds:

7. If a household requires government assistance (SNAP, Medicaid, rent subsidies, etc.) to maintain the family lifestyle, their middle class status is in doubt.

8. A percentage of non-financial hard assets such as family heirlooms, precious metals, business equity, rental income property, land, etc. that can be transferred to the next generation, i.e. generational wealth.

9. Ability to invest in offspring (education, extracurricular clubs/training, etc.).

10. Leisure time devoted to the maintenance of physical/spiritual/mental fitness.

Correspondent Mark G. suggested two more:

11. Continual accumulation of human and social capital (adding new skills, expanding social networks and markets for one’s services, etc.)

And the money shot:

12. Family ownership of income-producing assets such as rental properties, bonds, etc.

The key point of these thresholds is that propping up a precarious illusion of consumption and status signifiers does not qualify as middle class. To qualify as middle class (that is, what was considered middle class a generation or two ago), the household must actually own/control wealth that won’t vanish if the investment bubble du jour pops, and won’t be wiped out by a medical emergency.

In Chris’s phrase, “They should be focusing resources on the next generation and passing on Generational Wealth” as opposed to “keeping up appearances” via aspirational consumption financed with debt.

So how much does it cost to meet these qualifying standards? Two generations ago, public school teachers, healthcare workers, skilled craft workers and others with median-level incomes could meet all of these qualifications, for the purchasing power of their earnings was extremely high compared to now. A median wage bought a lot of shelter, vehicle, healthcare, college education, etc.

According to the US Census Bureau, Real median household income was $74,580 in 2022. (Source: Income in the United States: 2022) This is the “middle income” that presumably qualifies as “middle class,” but it would take extreme frugality and sacrifices to stretch $75,000 to cover the qualifications listed above, even in low-cost regions.

As a general guideline, $75,000 would only stretch to meet these qualifications if 1) the family home was owned free and clear, i.e. no mortgage, either via inheritance or extreme efforts such as building your own home with cash savings, 2) no student loan debt, either by gaining desirable skills outside college or completing college on scholarships, with family financial aid, etc., and no vehicle loan, i.e. a reliable used car/truck that is owned free and clear.

These may strike younger readers as impossible fantasies, but as I’ve often noted here, forty years ago I worked my way through a four-year university program with part-time jobs and built a house from scratch with only savings, income from temp construction jobs and a $5,000 bank loan ($17,000 in today’s dollars) which we paid off in two years.

Even with extreme frugality, this debt-free lifestyle is no longer within reach of the non-wealthy, as costs for college, land, permits and building materials have skyrocketed, along with the costs of healthcare, insurance, vehicles, childcare, etc.

I submit that for most households in higher-cost regions, these qualifications can only be met with an annual household income of $150,000 or more, which according to the Census Bureau, is the cutoff level for the top 20% (top quintile) of American households.

According to the Census Bureau, the top 20% earn 52% of all income, and the top 5% earn 23.5% of all income. The top 10% of households have an income of $216,000 or higher, and the top 5% have incomes of $295,000 or higher. The top 1% bracket is $867,000 and up. (TableA-4a, Income in the United States: 2022).

In lower-cost regions, it may be possible for frugal households in the 70% to 80% income bracket to qualify. According to the Census Bureau, this bracket earns between $118,700 and $153,000. This 10% might qualify as middle class. Households earning less would likely qualify only if they inherited significant wealth from their families or received substantial financial aid from their families, such as college paid for in full, a down payment for a home purchase, etc.

In summary: if we set minimum standards for qualifying as middle class by what was within reach of typical American households two generations ago, relatively few households qualify as middle class. Middle class means more than being able to charge a lavish cruise or foreign vacation on a credit card or buying a new truck with a huge loan. It once meant owning assets, not owing debt on assets.

Consider a few charts. Here we see the percentage of wealth owned by the 50% to 90% bracket–what we might consider middle class–has declined sharply as wealth has concentrated in the top 10%.

By way of example, the top 10% own 90% of stocks.

Wages are the bedrock of middle class income and wealth accumulation, and here we see wages share of the national income has been in a freefall for 45 years. It has recently ticked up, but it is not yet clear if this is just another temporary blip or an overdue clawback of income that has predominantly flowed to capital.

Can an economy in which 10% of the households qualify as middle class claim to offer widespread opportunities for secure prosperity? No, it cannot. “Middle class” isn’t just income or consumption; it demands a toehold of ownership of real assets that offer security, not a lifetime of debt servitude.

As security becomes increasingly precarious and unaffordable, Self-Reliance offers an alternative to a lifetime of debt servitude.

*  *  *

My new book is now available at a 10% discount ($8.95 ebook, $18 print): Self-Reliance in the 21st Century. Read the first chapter for free (PDF)

Become a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tensions are simmering in Washington as House Republicans intensify their probes into President Joe Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and the family’s business dealings, sparking a fiery standoff with the White House.

The White House, meanwhile, has made clear to House Republicans that they won’t play ball – leading to accusations that the Biden White House is “obstructing” their investigative efforts.

Spearheaded by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the Republicans are aggressively pursuing over 20 subpoenas issued to Biden staffers and family members.

“We just received a letter from the Special Counsel to the president making it clear the White House intends to continue obstructing our investigation,” reads a post on X from House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY)

🚨 BREAKING 🚨

We just received a letter from the Special Counsel to the President making it clear the White House intends to continue obstructing our investigation.

If President Biden has nothing to hide, then he should make his current and former staff available to testify…

— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) November 17, 2023

“We also need to know if these classified materials aided the Bidens’ global influence-peddling enterprise that brought in tens of millions for the Bidens and their associates,” Comer said on Friday. “This obstruction does not deter us, and we will continue to follow the facts and hold President Biden accountable to the American people.”

In a scathing four-page letter pushing back against the inquiry, a senior White House attorney, Richard Sauber, hit back, accusing the GOP of twisting facts and pushing a narrative loaded with “distortions and falsehoods.” Sauber’s letter lambasts the Republicans’ efforts as “congressional harassment” and a mere play to “score political points.”

Adding to the complexity, the White House accuses the Republicans of withholding critical information and shifting goalposts when their allegations are countered or debunked. This claim points to a deeper narrative battle, where each side accuses the other of misinformation and evasion.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s representatives have dismissed the subpoenas as a political charade but have signaled a willingness for a public address at an appropriate time. Similarly, James Biden’s attorney has highlighted the committee’s review of private bank records, suggesting that the necessary transparency is already in play.

Remember when Democrats just up and impeached Trump twice with way less evidence?

By Joseph M. Hanneman of Epoch Times

More than 40,000 hours of Jan. 6 Capitol Police security video will be made public on a dedicated website starting immediately and ramping up in the coming months, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) announced on Nov. 17.

However, individual video clips released to media or other requesters will have the faces of identifiable individuals blurred, a senior congressional aide told The Epoch Times. That restriction drew immediate fire from some Jan. 6 criminal case defendants.

“So while we are significantly expanding the amount of clips that will be available and who can request them, we will be blurring faces with respect to individuals who are identifiable,” the source said.

“To restore America’s trust and faith in their government we must have transparency,” Johnson wrote on X.com. “This is another step towards keeping the promises I made when I was elected to be your Speaker.”

Follow the link below to view the January 6th tapes for yourself.

To restore America’s trust and faith in their Government we must have transparency. This is another step towards keeping the promises I made when I was elected to be your Speaker.

This website will be updated…

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) November 17, 2023

The Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, chaired by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), has already posted 90 hours of Capitol security video in the online viewing room. The initial release includes footage previously provided to various media outlets.

“The goal of our investigation has been to provide the American people with transparency on what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and this includes all official video from that day,” Mr. Loudermilk said in a statement. “We will continue loading video footage as we conduct our investigation and continue to review footage.”

More videos will be added to the public site on “a rolling basis,” the source said.

“By current estimates, there are roughly 40,000 hours that we will be making public over the next few months as quickly as we can,” the congressional aide said.

Some video will be withheld if it is deemed “security sensitive” or if it could “potentially provide a roadmap for doxxing and harassing private individuals,” the aide said.

Beginning on Nov. 20, members of the public will also be able to view footage on terminals in the committee’s offices on Capitol Hill, the source said.

Those wishing to view the video at committee offices will have to request a time slot by emailing charep.oversightrequests@mail.house.gov.

In-person viewing on the congressional video terminals offers advantages over the online viewing room. In-person viewers can select individual cameras from an interactive Capitol map and narrow the footage by timeframe.

The in-person system has maps for each level of the Capitol. The Capitol grounds are separated into zones, with the camera locations indicated by small icons. Viewers can access the entire database, whereas the online viewing room will be stocked with tranches of footage on a rolling basis.

The announcement came amid mounting pressure from the public and Jan. 6 defendants to get access to the security video. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) earlier this year said he would release Jan. 6 video footage, but that commitment never resulted in the public getting direct access.

The viewing room setup and the plans to blur faces on video clips given to media or the public drew some fire on social media.

“Releasing batches of J6 CCTV is merely a way for Congress to pretend they are making the tapes public while holding back important footage they will ‘someday’ get to us in a ‘future’ batch,” Will Pope, a Jan. 6 defendant, wrote on X. “They gave it ALL to the FBI in January 2021! Americans deserve it ALL in one batch, too!”

Mr. Pope said blurring the faces of those shown in the downloadable videos will erode public trust. He called the Nov. 17 announcement a “publicity stunt.”

“Americans will never trust blurred and edited J6 footage,” he wrote.

Some commenters on social media asked how they can be sure the files posted online have not been altered.

During a Spaces online meeting on X, several of the more than 800 participants said they expect Google and YouTube to censor not only news about the Jan. 6 video releases but also any video clips people try to upload to social media. Others said they do not understand why the online viewing room does not have a download function.

Congressional sources said the public can request downloadable videos based on their research, but all clips are subject to committee approval and will be processed to blur the faces of identifiable persons.

Earlier this year The Epoch Times gained access to the Capitol Police database of nearly 1,700 cameras for Jan. 5 and 6. Based on research done on video terminals on Capitol Hill, the newspaper requested and was given dozens of individual clips that were used in the special report The Jan. 6 Tapes.

https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1725713948547133881

Workers weigh various factors when deciding to stay with a company for an extended period. These include a positive work environment, fair compensation, job security, opportunities for professional growth, and resilience against disruptive changes in the economy or technology.

So, which companies excel in employee retention?

As Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti details below, for the graphics in this post, Resume.io analyzed LinkedIn data to identify large companies where employees have the longest tenures in both the U.S. and the UK.

Benefits like Scholarships and Fertility Treatments

Resume.io ranked the top 100 companies by market cap in the U.S. and UK based on their average employee tenure through an analysis of their LinkedIn pages.

The large energy company ConocoPhillips leads in employee retention in the United States.

The company attracts young talent through university scholarships and offers military veterans transitioning into the civilian workforce ‘challenging and rewarding projects around the world.’

Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris Companies, Inc.) is the sole consumer goods company in the top 20. The tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis company, known for brands like Marlboro, holds significant stakes in Belgian brewery AB InBev and global cannabinoid company Cronos Group.

Actively moving away from smoked tobacco products, Altria provides an extensive benefits package to employees, including a profit-sharing plan, financial support for employees pursuing surrogacy or fertility treatments, and on-site amenities such as cafeterias, fitness centers, medical centers, and hair salons.

The top 10 is also notably dominated by energy and engineering companies.

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

A top deputy to Dr. Anthony Fauci indicated in a newly uncovered email that he purposefully did not keep records that he knew would be sought by the public and congressional investigators.

“I have retained very few emails or documents on these matters, and continue to request that correspondence on sensitive issues be sent to me at my gmail [sic] address,” Dr. David Morens, the deputy, wrote in the June 17, 2021, missive.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) obtained the email and included it in a letter to Health Secretary Xavier Becerra.

Dr. Morens wrote to colleagues after senators, including Mr. Johnson, wrote to then-National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins asking for documents on how the NIH handled the COVID-19 pandemic, which started in a city that features a laboratory that ran risky tests with funds from the NIH.

“Based on this email, it appears that Dr. Morens may have intentionally deleted or destroyed records relating to the origins of COVID-19 given his admission that he has ‘retained very few emails or documents on these matters,” Mr. Johnson told Mr. Becerra. “Further, Dr. Morens’ stated preference to receive correspondence on ‘sensitive issues’ through Gmail shows an apparent evasion of federal record keeping requirements and a complete disregard for transparency.”

The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the NIH, has repeatedly failed to hand over records that Mr. Johnson has requested, the senator noted. Dr. Morens’ apparent actions “may have directly obstructed my oversight efforts,” he wrote.

Mr. Johnson asked for all the records he has asked for as well as an outline of how federal officials will hold Dr. Morens accountable.

Mr. Becerra’s agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Dr. Morens has not responded to inquiries.

Dr. Morens is the senior adviser to the director at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an NIH institute that was headed until late 2022 by Dr. Fauci. Dr. Morens has worked for the agency for more than two decades.

Dr. Morens was writing to others who were part of the American Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene (AJTMH), including Dr. Peter Daszak, whose EcoHealth Alliance group helped funnel money from the NIH to the Wuhan laboratory.

Dr. Morens said he had retained correspondence relating to papers he wrote that were published online but had otherwise “retained no documents that might lead other members of AJTMH to be approached for similar document production.”

The title of the email was “CONFIDENTIAL WITHOUT OUR SMALL GROUP, PLEASE,” according to Mr. Johnson.

Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), members of the public can request information like emails from the federal government.

Dr. Morens disclosed in the July 9, 2021, email that his Gmail had been hacked and “until IT can get it fixed I may have to occasionally email from my NIH account.”

“Don’t worry, just sent to any of my addresses and I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times,” he also wrote.

Michael Chamberlain, director of the watchdog Protect the Public’s Trust, told The Epoch Times in an email that the missive showed “a pretty brazen effort to avoid public records requirements.”

The panel in October subpoenaed the NIH for documents and communications on what it described as a potential federal records violation.

Federal law provides in part that people who attempt to conceal or destroy government records face criminal prosecution.

Mr. Johnson said Dr. Morens’s email talking about deleting records “reveal an attempt to limit public access to certain communications directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially in violation of federal record keeping requirements.”

In a new letter this week, Mr. Johnson pressed Ms. Grimm on what action, if any, has been taken, while noting the email he had uncovered.

“Given Dr. Morens’ statements I shared with you in August 2023 and the June 17, 2021 correspondence above, the OIG must continue to conduct or immediately initiate a thorough investigation into Dr. Morens’ actions,” he wrote. “In light of Dr. Morens’ apparent efforts to hinder HHS’s response to my June 11, 2021 letter, I am deeply concerned that HHS officials may have intentionally removed or destroyed responsive records on the origins of COVID-19 or on other aspects of the pandemic. I hope you and your office are taking this matter seriously.”

A spokesperson for Ms. Grimm’s office told The Epoch Times via email that the office received the letter “and are reviewing it to determine the appropriate response.”

As another hunting season gets underway, a new trend is causing quite the stir in the brush: the color pink. Yes, pink.

Kevin Clements, an upland game hunter from the outskirts of Seattle, is ditching the traditional masculine orange for something a little more… let’s say, eye-catching. Clements, a construction contractor by day and fashion-forward hunter by twilight, is all set to strut through the high desert in bright pink, hunting chukar partridges with both style and controversy, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Clements, ready to be the butt of the joke, admits, “My friends will absolutely give me a lot of crap. But they give me a lot of crap anyway” It appears that the ridicule is a small price to pay for this avant-garde pioneer in the hunting world.

“I hate blaze orange,” he continued, rationalizing his choices. “I’m tired of wearing it. So that new pink vest is going on my list.”

Washington joins a growing list of states where hunters can now swap their blaze orange for blaze pink, a move that has rattled the cages of traditionalists. Some proponents of pink swear by its visibility and safety benefits — not to mention it may woo more women into the sport. Yet, others see it as a the latest encroachment of woke bullshit into a traditionally masculine sport.

The pink debate has even reached the digital pages of NRAWomen.com, sparking what could be called a flamboyantly fierce debate between “never pink-ers,” and those who say they’ll never give up their orange hunting gear.

Clements, on his own quest for the perfect pink vest, has found an ally in Final Rise, a Utah-based company that’s breaking the mold by crafting technical upland vests for bird hunting in, you guessed it, blaze pink. Matt Davis, the founder of Final Rise, was initially hesitant to add a splash of pink to his line, fearing backlash from women hunters who might see it as patronizing. But, to his surprise, the pink gear has not only taken off but is also being snatched up by men who find the color more visible and less prone to fading than orange.

The science allegedly backs up the pink posse, with studies showing that blaze pink can be more visible than orange and may even be less detectable by deer — a win-win for fashion-conscious hunters looking to stay safe and undetected.

However, not everyone is convinced. Jeff Johnston, a hunter and outdoors writer, remains skeptical, quipping “Maybe I would wear pink if I was stalking flamingos,” and predicted that when it comes to other hunters, “there’s no way that they’re going to switch to pink for the hell of it.”

States wrestle with the topic. In 2021, a bill in the Minnesota legislature unsuccessfully sought to overturn a relatively new provision that allowed hunters to wear pink. Some said there were people who had trouble seeing pink and that the state should return to blaze orange only.

Proponents of pink fought back. “There’s been a long, long battle over blaze pink,” testified state Rep. Josh Heintzeman, who supported keeping it. He said he hadn’t heard of problems that warranted tossing pink. And what about hunters who had invested in pink clothing? -WSJ

Meanwhile, in the great state of Texas, hunter Greg Howdeshell fears that sporting pink could be more dangerous than facing the wildlife, half-joking that “I think I would get shot here in Texas if I get caught hunting in pink.”

Legislators in states like Minnesota have grappled with the pink phenomenon, with some lawmakers pushing to revoke the allowance of pink for hunters. But the pink defenders, like Heintzeman, argue that this colorful battle is worth fighting for. He questions why the state would alienate hunters who have already invested in a pink wardrobe.

As the debate rages on, some hunters have had serendipitous encounters with pink. Joe Novak from Raleigh, N.C., donned his wife’s pink vest by accident and bagged his limit of woodcocks in record time. It’s been his lucky charm ever since, and size matters not when you’re bringing home the bounty.

Firefighter and hunter Will Givens from Little Rock, Ak., takes a more practical stance, saying he’d wear any color that keeps him safe and ups his game — even if it’s a “hot pink thong.”

Then there’s Ethan Pippitt from Pretty Prairie, Kan., who decided to make a statement by painting his shotgun pink. Initially met with raised eyebrows, he’s now known as “the guy with the pink gun,” and he wears it as a badge of honor, saying it’s all part of his brand.

According to Pippitt, “At first they asked if I borrowed my wife’s gun or lost a bet.”

Authored by Kit Knightly via off-guardian.org,

Last week the United Nations Development Program officially launched their new initiative promoting “Digital Public Infrastructure” (DPI) around the world.

The “50in5” program – so-called because it aims to introduce DPI in fifty countries in the next five years – began with a live-streamed event on November 8th.

For those of you unsure what “Digital Public Infrastructure” is, the 50in5 website is quite clear:

Digital public infrastructure (DPI) – which refers to a secure and interoperable network of components that include digital payments, ID, and data exchange systems.

There’s nothing new there, for anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention. Digital identity and digital payment systems are self-explanatory (and we’ve covered them before). “Data Exchange Systems” essentially means national governments will share identity and financial records of citizens across borders with other nations, or indeed with global government agencies.

The key word is “interoperable”.

As we have written before, the “global government” won’t be one single health care system, identity database, or digital currency – but dozens of notionally separate systems all carefully designed to be fully “interoperable”.

As well as being a project of the UNDP, UNICEF, and the Inter-American Development Bank, the 50in5 is funded by various globalist NGOs and non-profits including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and (indirectly through an NGO called “Co-Develop”) the Rockefeller Foundation.

The eleven counties taking part in the program so far are Bangladesh, Brazil, Estonia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Moldova, Norway, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Togo. A careful spread from every continent, including first, second, and third-world nations.

It is a list noteworthy for including NATO, EU, and BRICS members. Interesting implications on supposed “multipolarity” there.

In related news, on the exact same day the 50in5 program launched, the European Parliament and Council of Europe agreed on a new framework for a region-wide European Digital Identity (eID) system.

According to the official press release [emphasis added]:

The revised regulation constitutes a clear paradigm shift for digital identity in Europe aiming to ensure universal access for people and businesses to secure and trustworthy electronic identification and authentication. Under the new law, member states will offer citizens and businesses digital wallets that will be able to link their national digital identities with proof of other personal attributes (e.g., driving licence, diplomas, bank account). Citizens will be able to prove their identity and share electronic documents from their digital wallets with a click of a button on their mobile phone.

This comes on the back of announcements that the European Central Bank is moving on to the “next phase” of its Digital Euro plans this month. The digital euro will – according to former IMF (and apparent numerology nut) Christine Lagarde – afford some “limited control” over people’s spending.

India, another BRICS nation, has been at the forefront of DPI development for years, and now articles are appearing in publications like Forbes, claiming “India Has A Digital Infrastructure, America Needs One”.

At the same time, China is making strides toward ending online anonymity, while Western politicians like Nikki Haley say we should be doing the same.

As the world focuses on Hamas and Israel, the global re-organization phase of the Great Reset is just quietly going about its business. Building a net and waiting to tighten it.