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

The FBI should only have 14 days, not 66 years, to produce information from Seth Rich’s laptop computer, a lawyer argued in a new court filing.

After a U.S. judge ordered the FBI to produce the information, the bureau said that it should not be required to hand it over because of exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). And if the bureau still had to produce the information, government lawyers said it should have 66 years because it needs to review the information and redact certain information.

Ty Clevenger, the attorney representing Brian Huddleston, the Texas man who sued the FBI over the information, disagreed.

He told the judge in the new filing that the FBI failed to brief on the exemptions it is now claiming following the judge rejecting an attempt to shield the information because of privacy concerns for Rich’s relatives. That failure means the FBI cannot now rely on the exemptions, Clevenger said.

“Having failed to raise an issue or brief it in a motion for summary judgment, the movant may not then salvage the issue by raising it in a motion for reconsideration,” he said, citing previous court cases. “In other words, the movant does not get a Mulligan on reconsideration, which is exactly what the FBI seeks here.”

The bureau says that FOIA exemption 7(D)-3, which enables shielding identifying information of law enforcement personnel, and information provided by the personnel, enables it to keep withholding Rich’s laptop information from Huddleston.

“In short, the compact disc containing the images of Seth Rich’s personal computer were provided to the FBI by a local law enforcement agency under implied assurances of confidentiality, and thus the FBI properly withheld the compact disc in its entirety pursuant to Exemption 7(D)-3,” government lawyers told the court.

Another exemption, 7(E)-6, lets the agency keep the information secret, the lawyers said. That exemption enables the withholding of information that would reveal methods law enforcement uses in investigations.

Clevenger, though, said that neither exemption applies.

The first doesn’t because the FBI has never provided evidence that the source of the information was given assurance of confidentiality, he said. The second doesn’t because the bureau claims it never reviewed the laptop information.

“If this is true, then how could the FBI’s investigative or analytical techniques be compromised by revealing the contents of a laptop that it never investigated or analyzed?” Clevenger told the judge.

Read more here…

Believe it or not, California thinks it has a solution to the homelessness problem that can be solved with additional taxation! Go figure.

A new measure in Los Angeles, called Measure ULA, is set to generate $900 million in taxes that will then be used for housing subsidies and tenant protections. The tax is essentially a levy on all property sales of more than $5 million, according to Bloomberg.

This “mansion tax”, if it passes, will look to “speed new construction and deliver a way out of the city’s spiraling homelessness crisis”, according to Bloomberg. It could generate some $900 million per year to provide infrastructure like affordable homes and tools like counsel for tenants in eviction courts. 

Laura Raymond, director of the nonprofit Alliance for Community Transit–Los Angeles, told Bloomberg: “This would be the biggest investment in tenant protections in the history of LA.”

Yes, and it would be another reason on a long list of reasons for Californians to continue their exodus from the state to greener tax pastures like Florida and Texas. 

She continued: ““We want to make sure that once this has passed, the housing experts, community organizations, community leaders and people who’ve been doing this work for many years are at the forefront of implementation.”

Meanwhile critics of the bill say it could ultimately wind up causing costs for developers and, subsequently rents, to rise. The city had tried to issue a bond in 2016 to provide the same type of relief, but that measure was “lackluster” in its success, the report says. 

Bloomberg explains the new tax:

The current .45% transfer tax for all properties would jump to 4% for sales of more than $5 million, while transactions that top $10 million would garner a tax of 5.5%. It’s a special tax, meaning revenues don’t go into the city’s general fund but rather a dedicated purse. There’s a set-aside of 8% of revenues for an inspector general and oversight staff; the rest goes toward housing. The split for these funds is 70% for affordable housing (construction, subsidies and preservation) and 30% for homelessness prevention (various measures and tenant protections).

“We’re talking about very, very high-wealth individuals, but even more so large real estate corporations that honestly have not been paying their fair share, and have been making a killing off of this housing market as it is now,” Raymond continued. 

Affordable housing builders would be obvious beneficiaries from the tax, which will generate $600 million to $1.1 billion per year, bolstering subsidies for such developments.

Critics of the bill state the obvious: that it will disincentivize developers from building in Los Angeles. But “researchers” at UCLA are skeptical about the disincentives. 

Shane Phillips, housing initiative project manager for the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies and co-author on a series of studies focused on Measure ULA and transfer taxes, offered  up his best “modern monetary theory”-style explanation, telling Bloomberg: “That money has to come from somewhere. It’s not going to come from the buyer or renter. So the place it’s going to come from is the owner of the land from whom the developer buys the property.”

Raymond concluded: “In the past, we’ve had politicians get behind one solution. Right now we see criminalization of homelessness as being a major focus. That’s where they’ve poured a lot of their energy over the last couple of years, sweeping the streets. This is very different from that type of approach.”

You can read more about the details of the tax here. 

Authored by Jeff Carlson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Jan. 12, 2017, has proven to be an incredibly important date in American politics.

It was on this date that Igor Dancehnko’s soon-to-be FBI handler, Kevin Helson, sent an email regarding Danchenko with the heading: “Plan to convert into [confidential human source].” Danchenko, of course, was the primary source for former British spy Christopher Steele’s fictitious dossier on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.

It was also on this same day that Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced the initiation of a sweeping review into actions taken by the DOJ and FBI in advance of the 2016 election. This probe by Horowitz—either by design or by accident—effectively tied up any outside probes into the FBI’s actions for two years.

Also, on the same date, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was renewed for the first time.

Of particular note is the role of late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the events leading up to that day. Without McCain’s silent endorsement and the efforts by Kramer, it’s unlikely the dossier could have been published as a prelude to the events of Jan. 12. Notably, the dossier’s publication coincided with a CNN article declaring that “Intel chiefs presented [candidate Donald] Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.”

Just seven days earlier, on Jan. 5, 2017, top intelligence officials, including then-FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and then-Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) Michael Rogers had briefed outgoing President Barack Obama on the ICA report. Following the official meeting, Comey stayed behind to brief Obama on the dossier. It was at this meeting that Obama stated that he wanted his team to be “mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia” with the incoming Trump administration.

The next day, Comey and other officials including Clapper briefed President-elect Trump and his national security team on the Intelligence Community Assessment. During this portion of the meeting, the Steele dossier was mentioned in passing.

It was here that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser in the Trump administration, asked whether the FBI had dug into Steele’s sub-sources. Flynn’s probing questions may have precipitated his subsequent political demise at the hands of Comey.

Comey would stay behind after the initial meeting to brief Trump more fully on the dossier. Comey would later tell CNN’s Jake Tapper that he only briefed Trump on the “salacious” parts of the dossier because “that was the part that the leaders of the intelligence community agreed he needed to be told about.” News of the intelligence briefing to Trump was leaked hours later to the media.

Then on Jan. 12, The New York Times reported on then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s signing of new NSA Rules and the increased latitude of the NSA to share intercepted communications with the Intelligence Community.

This unprecedented new order significantly relaxed longstanding limits on the dissemination of information gathered by the NSA’s powerful surveillance operations, granting broad latitude to the Intelligence Community with regard to interagency sharing of information. The order had been officially signed into effect on Jan. 3, 2017, by Lynch. As we know with hindsight, leaks from the Intelligence Community would begin in earnest. And those leaks would plague the Trump administration for the next four years.

It was on the same day of Lynch’s signing of the new Executive Order that Schumer made his now infamous statement on NBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” where he said that if “you take on the Intelligence Community they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Without any trace of irony, Schumer then stated that without the Intelligence Community, the alleged Russian hacking of the 2016 presidential election would never have been discovered. In effect, Schumer was publicly warning the incoming Trump administration to stand down or the Intelligence Community would declare war on it.

Also on Jan. 12, Flynn’s Dec. 29, 2016, call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was the subject of an article published by The Washington Post. The article portrayed Flynn as undermining Obama’s Russian sanctions and raised the possibility that Flynn had violated the Logan Act, an obscure, 200-year-old law. Interestingly, it was then-Vice President Joe Biden who first suggested using the Logan Act against Flynn at the Jan. 5 White House meeting with Comey. In 2020, declassified transcripts of Flynn’s call with Kislyak revealed that Flynn never once talked about sanctions.

It was also on Jan. 12 that James H. Baker, the director of the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA), suddenly issued a series of charges against Adam Lovinger, a strategic affairs analyst. The timing of these charges is of great importance, as it was on this same day that Flynn, now heading the National Security Council for the Trump administration, officially invited Lovinger to leave the ONA and join the National Security Council as a senior director. Baker filed four separate charges against Lovinger.

The reason for the targeting of Lovinger appears evident. Lovinger had grown increasingly concerned over the ONA’s use of outside contractors—in particular, those of a prominent FBI source, Stefan Halper. In 2016, Lovinger wrote a series of emails to Baker, who had recently been appointed by Obama’s defense secretary. In October 2016, Lovinger wrote to Baker, identifying Halper as a particular source of contractual concern, writing of “the moral hazard associated with the contracting of Stefan Halper.” Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean Bigley, would later state that Halper was being used “to go out essentially and engage with foreign government officials. As a contractor, that’s totally illegal.”

Lovinger would continue to criticize the use of outside contractors. In a March 3, 2017, memo, Lovinger noted, “There has never been an external review of these contractors’ research products. … It is now clear that over several decades, the office transferred millions of dollars to inexperienced and unqualified contractors.” On May 1, 2017, Lovinger was notified that his top-secret clearance had been suspended. He was the second Trump official to lose his security clearance. The loss of a security clearance is a significant matter, as it’s a requirement for many senior positions. Lovinger was then directed to leave the National Security Council and return to the Pentagon immediately.

The target of Lovinger’s complaints, Halper, met with the FBI on Aug. 11 and 12, 2016, shortly after the FBI had formally opened their July 31, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane investigation into the Trump campaign. As it turns out, Halper just so happened to have direct knowledge of two of the three men considered subjects of Crossfire Hurricane—including Page, whom Halper had met with twice during the month of July. Halper would later fashion a meeting in London with Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, the one person of the three that he didn’t already know. But Halper also fabricated information on another man who was not yet being looked at by the FBI—Flynn.

Read more here…

Measures like GDP are commonly used to understand the overall wealth and size of the economy. However, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley details below, while looking at economic output on an annual basis is useful, there are other metrics to consider when evaluating the wealth of a nation.

Household wealth statistics reveal which country’s citizens are accruing the highest level of money and assets worldwide.

This visual utilizes data from Credit Suisse’s annual Global Wealth Report to break down the latest estimates for household wealth by country.

Household Wealth, by Country

Here’s how the world’s $463 trillion in household wealth is distributed:

As the table above demonstrates, global household wealth is far from being distributed equally.

Country-Level Wealth Concentration

Much of global wealth is concentrated in the biggest economies, with households in China and the U.S. combining to make up half of all personal wealth in the world. This differs slightly from using GDP as a measure, where the U.S. and China make up 24% and 19% of the world economy in nominal terms, respectively.

Today, just 10 countries account for 75% of total household wealth.

One of the biggest changes in recent years is the rise of wealth in China. A decade ago, China’s citizens were estimated to hold just 9% of the world’s wealth. That figure has now more than doubled, while median wealth in the country has skyrocketed from $3,111 to $26,752 between 2000 and 2021.

A Regional Look at Household Wealth

From a regional standpoint, wealth is equally split three ways, between North America, Asia, and everywhere else.

In just one decade, Europe’s share of household wealth dropped by eight percentage points, which is due, in part, to the economic momentum of China.

Surprisingly, the regions of Africa, South America, Oceania, and the Middle East combine only for about 11% of the world’s total household wealth.

Submitted by Alex Madajian, the Federal Affairs Assistant of Gun Owners of America., 

It did not take long for anti-gun activists in the media to make the claim gun control is a winning issue for Democrats, but only if the glaring problems with that picture are ignored.

Abortion, record inflation, large amounts of crime, concerns about democracy, and even climate change and healthcare ranked of higher concern for voters than gun policy according to NBC. Additionally, the New York Times reported last month only 1% of likely voters thought guns were the most important problem. No doubt, if guns were the only issue on the ballot, there would be very different results. The fact is, there were too many factors in play for pundits to make the claim people want more gun control. But there were many glaring cases in which pro-gun elected officials were rewarded for strong pro-gun actions.

Every single governor who signed a Constitutional Carry law, which would allow people to carry a firearm without a permit, won re-election. Brian Kemp won Georgia, Chris Sununu won New Hampshire, Kim Reynolds won Iowa, Kevin Stitt won Oklahoma, Greg Abbott won Texas, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine also won reelection. All of the aforementioned either signed Constitutional Carry Laws in their current term or a previous term. Additionally, although Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida did not sign Constitutional Carry, he called for such legislation to be sent to him for his signature. If guns really were on the ballot in Florida, then the people of Florida clearly are rewarding him for his pro-gun stance by giving him another term.

Even the people of Uvalde, who suffered the horrendous tragedy of 19 children and 2 teachers murdered at Robb Elementary School in May of this year by a deranged school shooter, decided to vote more than 60% for Governor Greg Abbot, who again, signed permitless carry into law. In addition, a Republican challenger to the State Senator representing the area, won the Uvalde area by more than 17% and boasts support for the “constitutional right to carry” on his website.

People who argue guns are not a good issue to run on may claim Congresswoman Lauren Boebert’s narrow race in a supposedly safe Republican district is an example of how proud pro-gun candidates are vulnerable. However, if Representative Boebert’s close margins in a safe red district prove that’s the case, why didn’t that apply to other supposedly “controversial” pro-gun elected officials? Congressman Thomas Massie is also the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus with Boebert, yet he won by massive margins. What about Congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene? She is no stranger to taking stances on a host of issues that are considered “controversial” by the anti-gun Left, and also makes guns a top issue on which to campaign. Plus, she was outspent by her opponent by nearly $5 million, but she still won by massive margins.

The best conclusion to make regarding Boebert’s close race is that there were numerous factors involved not having to do with gun policy. Even her opponent didn’t make it an issue, since he never mentions it on his website. When he was asked about it, he expressed a middle-of-the-road opinion by saying “I’m fully supportive of people having [guns]. Let’s make sure people can hunt as freely as they wish, let’s make sure they can do their target practices and recreational gun firing, and let’s make sure people have the ability to carry the pistol on their belt.”

As it turns out, when Democrats show support for guns, they do fair very well. Perhaps the most egregious anti-Second Amendment piece of legislation put on the floor of the House for a vote was this year’s so-called “Assault Weapons” ban. This ban was far more encompassing than just AR-15s, which would be extreme enough, but would also have banned common items such as Glock handguns. Obviously, opposition to such legislation does not make one a pro-gun hero, but it shows even a few pragmatic Democrats recognize voting for gun bans are a bad idea in tight races. All three Democrat candidates running for reelection in the general who voted against the ban won reelection. Reportedly, two won by nearly 10 points. Democrat Jerad Golden ran in one of the thirteen districts Trump won in 2020 and is projected to win according to the Sun Journal.

Even gun control organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety don’t act as if their actual mission of gun control is enough of an issue to mobilize voters. The Reload reports they ran ads attacking pro-gun candidate’s stances on irrelevant issues to guns like abortion or the security of the 2020 election. They also spent $1 million to defeat two Secretary of State candidates, which is an office that has nothing to do with gun policy.

Declaring voters don’t care about their right to defend themselves because Republicans did worse than expected is a projection of desires rather than a report of facts. Many issues were on voters’ minds, but if appreciation for gun control was one of them, then that’s just clearly not reflected by the results.

*   *   *

Gun Owners for America, the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.

Did you know that the internet you’re familiar with is only 10% of the total data that makes up the World Wide Web?

As Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang details below, the rest of the web is hidden from plain sight, and requires special access to view. It’s known as the Deep Web, and nestled far down in the depths of it is a dark, sometimes dangerous place, known as the darknet, or Dark Web.

This graphic by Enrique Mendoza provides us a glimpse at this shrouded part of the internet, showing us some of the common items that are sold on there, and how much they typically cost.

A Brief Introduction to the Dark Web

Before diving in, it’s worth quickly explaining what the Dark Web is, and how people typically gain access to it.

Unlike the ordinary web (which is also known as the Surface Web), the Dark Web cannot be accessed through a regular browser such as Chrome or Safari. Rather, users need to access it anonymously via a Tor browser.

Tor, which is short for “The Onion Router,” is a special portal that connects users to Dark Web websites in a complicated way that ultimately protects the user’s identity. This means users can access websites anonymously.

The Dark Web can be a breeding ground for illegal activity, where people can buy things like contract killings, drugs, malware, and other people’s personal information.

Product Price Breakdown

How much is your personal information worth on the Dark Web? This graphic uses data from the 2022 Dark Web Product Price Index to find that out and more.

This annual report by privacyaffairs.com provides insights into some of the most popular products that are for sale on the Dark Web, such as credit card data, forged documents, and hacked info, and lists the average price of each product.

While this list is far from exhaustive and not the only measure of Dark Web prices, the report gives us a glimpse into hidden online territory that’s extremely unfamiliar to many of us. Here’s the top 10 most valuable items…

One of the most expensive items included in the dataset is premium malware, which costs about $5,500 per 1,000 installs. While the cost for premium malware is hefty, there are still billions of malware attacks occurring every year causing huge monetary damage.

On the other end of the spectrum are Paypal account details, Netflix logins, or stolen credit card details (complete with a CVV) all available for less than $20.

How to Protect Your Personal Information

As the line between the digital and physical realm becomes increasingly blurry, it’s more important than ever to make sure you’re protecting yourself and your personal information from identity theft.

According to Privacy Affairs, there are several proactive measures you can take to decrease your chances of getting hacked. This includes using a VPN whenever you access public Wi-Fi, using different passwords for different online accounts, and investing in anti-malware software to combat unwanted visitors.

A large section of the U.S. space shuttle Challenger has been found on the Atlantic Ocean floor, more than 30 years after it exploded shortly after liftoff, killing all seven aboard, NASA’s Kennedy Space Center announced on Thursday. 

The section remains partially buried, but measures at least 15 feet by 15 feet. Judging by the shape of its thermal tiles, NASA believes this piece is from the belly of the shuttle. 

The shuttle piece was originally discovered in March, by divers working on a History Channel documentary series about the Bermuda Triangle. They were looking for World War II aircraft wreckage but were startled to find something very different just off Florida’s Cape Canaveral coast. The documentary will debut on Tuesday, Nov. 22. 

Noting the “modern construction and presence of 8-inch square tiles,” the production team alerted NASA, the agency said in a press release. After studying the video, NASA verified it was from Challenger.   

Challenger exploded on Jan. 28, 1986, just 73 seconds after liftoff. The last command given to the shuttle was “Challenger, go with throttle up.” 

A spectacular explosion followed, and then stunned silence from both TV commentators and NASA launch commentator Steve Nesbitt. That silence ended when Nesbitt said, “Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation…obviously a major malfunction….we have no downlink.” 

Evidence points to a grim conclusion: The astronauts likely survived the initial explosion. Among other indicators, study of wreckage found that at least three astronauts switched their emergency oxygen supply on. 

Since the shuttle was 12 miles up when it exploded, the six NASA crew members and school-teacher Christa McAuliffe may have spent 2 minutes in sheer terror, knowing they were plummeting to certain death. 

An investigation found that unexpectedly cold temperatures led to the failure of O-ring seals in the shuttle’s solid rocker booster segment joints. Flight managers approved the launch despite concerns raised by shuttle program employees.  

Though 118 tons of Challenger’s wreckage have been found so far, that’s still just under half of the total mass that lifted off that day. In 1986, the remains of all seven astronauts were recovered from the shattered wreckage of the crew compartment. As the New York Times reported at the time, the crew compartment was “little more than a pile of rubble on the ocean floor, 8 feet high and 50 feet across.” 

Despite the huge volume of material that’s still unaccounted for, this is the first new section of the shuttle found since 1996, when two portions of the left wing washed ashore. 

What they uncover off the coast of Florida, outside of the Triangle, marks the first discovery of wreckage from the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger in more than 25 years. Don’t miss the premiere of The Bermuda Triangle: Into Cursed Waters on Tuesday, November 22 at 10/9C. pic.twitter.com/LWUoFXxEnK

— HISTORY (@HISTORY) November 10, 2022

Authored by Adam R. Gebner, a Green Beret and West Point graduate, via Bitcoin Magazine,

The opinions expressed throughout this piece are mine alone, and in no way reflect official policy or opinions of the U.S. Army or the U.S. Department of Defense. Though I am by no means a writer, I hope that by publishing this, more service members consider working in the Bitcoin industry and Bitcoin companies consider expanding their efforts to hire Veterans. Additionally, I am always learning more about Bitcoin, how it works, and the potential value it may bring to our world. Please let me know where I am off base, thanks!

Early in my life, I knew I wanted to be a Green Beret officer. Fighting to liberate oppressed people by working by, with, and through local populations was at the core of my motivations to choose this path. I saw the Special Forces’ mission as a cost and risk-efficient way to prevent large-scale conflict while enabling people to defend themselves and secure their own freedom. After graduating from West Point in 2014 and serving with the 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) for three years, I ultimately earned my Green Beret and an opportunity to lead a detachment of America’s Chosen Soldiers. Now that I’ve accomplished what I set out to do with my military career by commanding an “A-team” for two years, I am looking forward to the next mission in my professional life: contributing to the adoption and integration of the best freedom-protecting innovation in modern history — Bitcoin.

Like so many others, I had a few touch points with Bitcoin before seriously considering the validity of the technology. In 2010, during my first year at West Point, I overheard a few Computer Science majors discussing this “internet money” and I foolishly dismissed it without trying to learn anything else. Then in 2013, when I started learning about investing and economics, I stumbled across bitcoin again. I read a little bit more into it, but not enough to understand how it could replace gold as a sound money system (thanks Peter Schiff…).

Finally, in the summer of 2017, when I was deployed to the Republic of Georgia, “number-go-up” piqued my curiosity and I made my first attempt at buying some bitcoin. Unfortunately for me, the exchange I used, Coinbase, didn’t accept my orders because even though I had an American driver’s license and a U.S. Passport, I had an Italian phone number and was in the Republic of Georgia which, apparently, was suspicious. I completely missed that bull run, but I finally started to learn more about bitcoin and the potential of this innovation.

The concepts I learned reading about Austrian economics, personal investing and American history clicked shortly after. My perspective on some of the most persistent problems around the world shifted towards the realization that our global monetary system is corrupt, pricing signals are severely distorted, and the national and global debt is unsustainable. Since then, I have continued to learn about economics, bitcoin, and the growing industry around it, while stacking sats as often as possible.

This year, I completed my time in command and I had to make a career decision: continue serving in the Army or transition out. Service members, especially those who choose to serve for the standard 20-year career, have my deepest respect. Military life isn’t easy, it requires giving up a wide swath of freedoms, volunteering your life in order to protect national interests and persisting through deep uncertainty. The military profession can provide an honorable career, but for a variety of personal and professional reasons, I am called to do something else. I am inspired and encouraged to find work that contributes to a free and prosperous world, work that creates value for others, work that fixes systemic problems. For me, this means taking my experience leading diverse, cross-functional teams to market with the goal of contributing to the continued success and expansion of Bitcoin.

For any service member or Veteran who might be reading this, if you want to develop technical skills, take advantage of the Career Skillbridge Program. I am on my way to enrolling in a Vet Tec program, a Veterans Affairs program to train transitioning service members on a variety of in-demand technical skills, like computer programing and data processing. My experience creating models while studying mechanical engineering has helped with the learning curve, as has some experience working through classes on Code Academy. But anyone with an honest desire to learn will be successful. Not every Veteran or member of the Bitcoin industry needs to have these technical skills, however, for those who want to work in product development, or management, I believe having experience with software engineering, computer science or programming is next to essential and will make you much more marketable to bitcoin-focused companies.

Other vets in the industry have been incredibly helpful. Oftentimes a cold-message over LinkedIn results in an enthusiastic response and a phone call. Veterans currently working with Bitcoin know that as service members leave, they want to continue serving in a principle-based organization, and Bitcoin is arguably the most freedom-preserving industry to work in. For service members on their way out, find people who have already made the switch. They are great sounding boards for your ideas and bump-steering potential career plans. You will only leave the military once (hopefully), talk to as many people as possible who have done it before you and are now working in your targeted industry.

To me, and many other Veterans, serving in an industry with an inspiring, impactful mission is an essential requirement for a post-military career. Out of all the options, I believe that working in the Bitcoin industry and helping spread the adoption of bitcoin is an excellent fit for the dedicated, principled and team-oriented Veterans looking for their next opportunity to contribute to society. To Bitcoin companies, talk with and hire Veterans. There are many ways to provide transitioning Veterans with trial runs with your company, at no cost to you. I think you will find that Veterans are competent members of your team who will remain dedicated to your mission and their coworkers.

I see the potential of a civilian career working with Bitcoin as an incredible opportunity to pursue following the end of a highly rewarding period of military service. I am excited to contribute to the growth of the network and adoption of the technology. Despite the FUD and recent global instability, I am optimistic for our future. As a Green Beret who was trained to foment revolutions in pursuit of the expansion of human freedoms, I have high hopes for what Bitcoiners can do for humanity.

[ZH: Adam’s story was not alone and we thought the following, authored by Luke Groom, a West Point graduate and Army Enginner Officer, offered further insights as to why veterans find bitcoin so compelling.]

The Constitution was the code which enabled the protocol of America, Land of the Free — and Bitcoin builds upon this freedom.

Within the Bitcoin community, U.S. military service members are sometimes viewed with suspicion. I don’t know where this suspicion comes from. Maybe the libertarian elements of the community are against things that remind them of Big Government. Maybe Left elements of the community are against things that remind them of guns and violence. Maybe people think we are infiltrating the Bitcoin ranks to secretly further the interests of the Military Industrial Complex. I can only speculate. For me, the transition from service member to Bitcoiner is obvious. I will outline three reasons: freedom, responsibility and code. Throughout, I will refer to “military service members” and “Veterans” interchangeably, because they are the same people, just at different periods of life.

First, the key value which drives many young men and women to join the military is the same key value that Bitcoin promotes. If you ask someone why they chose to serve in the military, and continue to dig into their answer, somewhere in there is almost always a desire to promote liberty and freedom. At its core, Bitcoin is freedom money. It is free from debasement, free from political influence, free from seigniorage, free from centralization, free from manipulation and free from compulsion. Most people join the military because they value liberty. They value free markets. They want to fight for the “Land of the Free.” Sure, actual results may vary, but the desire is there.

Consider that we have centrally controlled fiat money, capable of debasement, political influence, theft via seigniorage and manipulated pricing via fixing of interest rates. Consider that fiat money is at least half of essentially every transaction. That means that not only do we not have a free market of money; we don’t have a free market of anything! Imagine the disillusionment of a service member who has dedicated their life to fighting for freedom, only to realize that we live in this unfree, manipulated-market world. Then they learn about Bitcoin. Becoming a Bitcoiner means voting with your energy in favor of free markets and all the freedom that Bitcoin represents. They realize that if they put their energy into Bitcoin, whether their purchasing power goes up or goes down, they are fighting for freedom, just like their inspiration to join the military to begin with.

Second, most Veterans crave increased personal responsibility. The military is great for teaching young people responsibility. Get up. Make your bed. Exercise. Go to work. Wear the right thing. Be on time. Be reliable. Be accountable. Lead. Follow. Take care of your buddies. The military has built in forcing functions to teach responsibility.

There comes a time, however, when you want to take the training wheels off. You want to show your personal responsibility without someone looking over your shoulder to make sure you’re doing it right. You want more than five options for your retirement investments. You want to shout, “I’m a peacock, you gotta let me fly!” Bitcoin aligns with that desire. You have to do your own research. You have to take responsibility for custody (or responsibility for counterparty risk). You have to accept the volatility in its conversion rate to fiat. There’s no safety net in the Bitcoin market, and that increased personal responsibility is liberating for many Veterans.

Last, every Veteran swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. As I’ve gone through law school, I’ve developed a greater appreciation for that document. We live in a polarized country. I’ve seen a lot of that country first-hand, living in Chicago, New York, Missouri, North Carolina and Washington. I’ve lived in the city, the suburbs and small towns. I’ve worked with millionaires and with people without a sat to their name. I’ve shared meals with people who have lost friends fighting overseas and with people who have protested at Army bases. Our citizens look different, sound different and have vastly different values. With citizens who are so dissimilar, what is holding this country together?

I would argue that the Constitution holds this country together and defines who we are as a nation. The Constitution is less than 5,000 words of code that set-in motion the protocol that is the United States of America. We have since seen that code soft forked in the form of amendments to the Constitution. We have seen layer upon layer of government built on top of that code, in similar ways that layers are being built upon Bitcoin. Some could successfully argue that we have seen the code ignored or misinterpreted beyond recognition. However, this code is at the heart of our country. Every service member swears to support and defend, not a man, not a military industrial complex, but that Constitution. For Veterans who have already sworn to possibly give their lives for the sake of one code, the step to embrace code-based money is natural.

Finally, my Veterans Day would not be complete without thanking a Veteran or two. Thank you, Anthony Pompliano and Preston Pysh. Without you two, I might still be thinking that Bitcoin was “probably nothing.” Happy Veterans Day.

[ZH: Finally, before we leave the topic of Veterans and Bitcoin, the following brief excerpt from ‘Captain Sidd’s recent note helps explain why adopting bitcoin on Veterans Day can help put an end to forever wars that unnecessarily risk the lives of U.S. soldiers.]

Widespread adoption of bitcoin as a monetary unit, in place of fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar, would tightly control or completely eliminate a government’s ability to print money. Just as the gold standard kept U.S. spending largely in check, a bitcoin standard will limit spending on military adventures abroad and costly programs at home. Government programs will need the support of the people to continue receiving funding, or else the increased taxation needed to fund those programs will lead to voting out politicians who support them. The feedback loop of rising spending between government and supported industries — like the arms industry in the U.S. — will largely disappear as public sentiment plays a larger role in allocation of government funds.

I am hopeful we can achieve a bitcoin standard because doing so does not require us to lobby the very politicians who benefit most from the existing monetary system. Achieving a bitcoin standard only requires that we as individuals and communities continue to adopt bitcoin to a greater degree as a savings tool and monetary medium. If we all hold and transact in bitcoin instead of fiat currencies, the fiat money printer has nobody to suck purchasing power from and the politics of money printing will necessarily reform.

Let’s honor our military veterans by only putting soldiers into war when absolutely necessary. Our collective and peaceful actions can end the funding source for unaccountable, brutal and life-destroying forever wars.

As the world moves towards net-zero emissions, sustainable and affordable power sources are urgently needed by humanity.

As Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti details below, one of the most promising technologies, fusion, has attracted the attention of governments and private companies like Chevron and Google. In fact, Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated that the fusion market may eventually be valued at $40 trillion.

In this infographic sponsored by General Fusion, we discuss the benefits of fusion as a clean energy source.

The Ultimate Source of Energy 

Fusion powers the sun and the stars, where the immense force of gravity compresses and heats hydrogen plasma, fusing it into helium and releasing enormous amounts of energy. Here on Earth, scientists use isotopes of hydrogen—deuterium and tritium—to power fusion plants.

Fusion energy offers a wide range of benefits, such as:

1. Ample resources:

Both atoms necessary for nuclear fusion are abundant on Earth: deuterium is found in seawater, while tritium can be produced from lithium.

2. Sustainable

Energy-dense generation like fusion minimizes land use needs and can replace aging infrastructure like old power plants. 

3. Clean

There are no CO₂ or other harmful atmospheric emissions from the fusion process.

4. Scalable

With limited expected regulatory burden or export controls, fusion scales effectively with a small land footprint that can be located close to cities.

5. Safety advantage

Unlike atomic fission, fusion does not create any long-lived radioactive nuclear waste. Its radiation profile is similar to widely used medical and industrial applications like cyclotrons for cancer treatment.

6. Reliable

Fusion energy is on-demand and independent from the weather, making it an excellent option in a dependable portfolio for power generation.

Commercializing Fusion Energy

More than 130 countries have now set or are considering a target of reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050. Meanwhile, global energy demand is expected to increase by 47% in the next 30 years.

While renewables like wind and solar are intermittent and need a baseload source of clean energy to supplement them, fusion, when commercially implemented, could deliver clean, abundant, reliable, and cost-competitive energy. 

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

“Democracy” is the new “revolutionary.”

In the old Marxist regimes, anything that displeased the regime was said to be contrary to “the revolution.” For example, in the Soviet Union, national leaders spoke regularly of how the nation was in the process of “a revolutionary transformation” toward a future idealized communist society. Many years after the actual revolution and coup d’état in Russia following the collapse of tsarist rule, the word “revolution” had “positive connotations and was considered a source of legitimacy in official ideology.”

“Revolutionary” became a synonym for “a thing we like,” and it’s no surprise that a 1952 Soviet legal manual lists “counterrevolutionary” activities as among the “political crimes … deemed generally dangerous crimes against the order of the state.” Moreover, in the early 1950s, when Mao Zedong launched new efforts to consolidate Communist power, he called the effort a “campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries.” Other regimes adopted similar practices as well. Fidel Castro’s regime frequently launched investigations and campaigns against “antirevolutionary” dissidents and Ethiopia’s Marxist governments in the 1970s described domestic opponents as guilty of “anti-revolutionary crimes.”

Anything that was deemed “counterrevolutionary” or “antirevolutionary” was assumed to be an awful thing that was a threat to the reliably vague notion of progress toward the fulfillment of the alleged revolution. The vagueness of the term was, of course, an advantage from the point of view of the regime. Consequently, to be a counterrevolutionary required nothing more than to be guilty of thought crime by subscribing to heterodox views on the current ruling party.

Thus, to be a counterrevolutionary was simply to be opposed to the regime, regardless of one’s actual ideological views. This is why communist Emma Goldman (a bona fide revolutionary) could be denounced as “antirevolutionary” for expressing doubts about the virtues of the Soviet regime. One’s support for actual revolution was irrelevant, and “antirevolutionary” could simply be defined or redefined as whatever the regime found objectionable at any given time.

In the year 2022, we find the word “democracy” serving a similar role in political discourse. President Joe Biden has delivered two major speeches this year on how “democracy” will supposedly be abolished if his opponents win. Last week, former president Barack Obama solemnly intoned that if Republicans win in Arizona, “democracy as we know it may not survive.” Indeed, this has become something of a mantra among left-wing politicians and their media allies. One writer at Salon chastised voters for daring to let their votes be influenced by economic concerns when “democracy is under threat.” One New York Times headline bemoaned the apparent reality that voters don’t seem interested in “saving democracy” when it’s supposedly all so clear that “democracy is in peril.”

So why are so many voters allegedly ready to “trade democracy for cheap gas”? The answer probably lies in the fact that most voters can see what is obvious: the only thing actually in peril is the Left’s version of democracy, which is an anything-goes-including-rampant-voter-fraud model for US elections. Moreover, the Left wants a federal takeover of elections, which in the United States have always been at least moderately decentralized. Instead, the “prodemocracy” camp wants federally enforced election regulations prohibiting limitations on voting for aliens, dead people, and frauds. If the Left does poorly in this election, that’s a lot less likely to happen.

Any attempt to limit fraud – such as requiring identification for voters is denounced as “anti-democratic.” Indeed, nothing better shows this than the Left’s complaints about the fact that some law enforcement officers have monitored polling places. As one Georgetown University bureaucrat put it, allowing law enforcement personnel to guard ballot boxes might “intimidate” some people, and sends the message that voter fraud actually occurs. This, she tells us, is “abhorrent.” But at the core of this complaint is simply an aversion to the idea that the presence of police might scare some people away from ballot stuffing and other forms of fraud.

Ironically, by this way of thinking, to be “pro-democracy” is to not care whether the voting process is fraudulent. Thus, just like the term “revolutionary” under the old Communist regimes, the terms “democratic” and “democracy” in the US today cease to have any meaning and really just mean “what our side likes.”

After all, most reasonable people would conclude that democratic institutions exist whenever there are regular elections and generally universal suffrage for citizens. This is clearly the case in every state of the union. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of countries that the Left calls “democracies”—France, Germany, Iceland, etc.—have voter identification requirements, checks against double voting, and similar means of preventing fraud. In the United States, the Left calls all this “antidemocratic.”

The actual details of what it means to be prodemocratic or antidemocratic don’t actually matter when it comes to political discourse. The word “democratic” is an emotionally loaded term, and essentially code for “politically legitimate.” All that really matters is to call one’s allies “democratic” and to denounce the other side as “undemocratic.” In America today, to be labeled “democratic” means one has the approval of the ruling regime. Those who are labeled “undemocratic” are those who, like the “counterrevolutionaries” of old, have been deemed—rightly or wrongly—threats to the status quo.