A clear pattern is emerging, and it’s a dangerous one.  The political left has been systematically combing through any criminal or civil court cases which are gaining media traction and national attention, then hijacking those cases and turning them into vehicles for political gain.  

Their motive may simply be an effort to attach themselves to these events in order to steal the spotlight, or the agenda might be far more ugly.  From Luigi Mangione, to the Lindsay Clancy case, to the failed execution of Christa Pike and many more cases, leftists always seem to take the side of the villain.  These activist operations function in a “post-truth” environment where facts and evidence no longer matter. 

Their true goal may be to destroy the very integrity of the criminal process and jury trials in the US.  If every jury pool from now on is tainted by political motives, then no fair trial is possible and horrific criminals could escape punishment.  When leftists use the mantra “everything is political”, they are not joking.  They see every aspect of society as a political battleground, even the courtroom and the jury box.

For progressives, politics simply means “power.”  It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s not about being logical or practical, it’s not even about the greater good; they only care about winning.

We saw this mentality during the Lindsay Clancy trial, in which a women who openly admitted to strangling her three tiny children on at least four separate occasions was held up by the woke mob as a heroic figure – A symbol of female victimhood and empowerment all wrapped into one person.  It seems like insanity, but this behavior is highly calculated and has far reaching repercussions for the future of American society. 

It doesn’t matter that she committed the crime; progressives want the power to dictate who gets punished and who doesn’t based on the political content of the crime.  The same scenario applies to the recent and bewildering resurgence of the October 2024 Cornell Rape Case.  

According to a civil lawsuit filed by “Jane Doe” (a then-20-year-old Cornell student and Tri-Delta sorority member) in September 2026, she went to a fraternity house that night after drinking heavily. She alleges that members of the fraternity gave her alcohol, marijuana, and ketamine, that she became incapacitated and unable to consent, and that she was sexually assaulted/raped by seven men over several hours.  

The incident was used as an ideological whip, an example “proving” that feminists were right all along about campus rape culture.  There was a problem, though.  The woman in question gave multiple conflicting statements which contradicted the rape allegations.  Numerous text messages also indicated that the encounter was consensual and that the woman willingly engaged in the drug use and sexual activity.   

No criminal charges were filed because the case did not meet the legal requirements for prosecution.  Jane Doe did not pursue any criminal or civil punishment until rumors spread across campus painting her in a negative light.  Suddenly, the consensual sex became “gang rape”.      

Despite ample contrary evidence, Democrat politicians and activist groups are trying to dredge up the case once again as if it supports their feminist causes and “rape culture” theories.  After the civil lawsuit was filed in September 2026 and drew national attention, New York Governor Kathy Hochul appointed notoriously biased Attorney General Letitia James as a special prosecutor to take over the criminal inquiry. 

In other words, the leftists want to railroad the men involved.  Protesters have rallied at Cornell “in solidarity with Jane Doe” as if the university is somehow culpable for the incident.

Some direct texts from Jane Doe to two of the men involved in the event:

“…At the end of the day none of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really like being w u and matt. So anything anyone has to say about the gamgbang [sic] is out of their jurisdiction…”

“I don’t think we should feel any shame for the part. our body our choice asf…”  

“Bro, everyone knows…my reputation is destroyed and i’m utterly ashamed.”  

It’s important to understand that feminism calls for the complete abandonment of female accountability in favor of empowerment through shamelessness.  Women are not supposed to suffer consequences for their behavior, regardless of their culpability and lack of propriety, because “personal freedom” takes precedence over everything else.  When a woman is made to feel shame, this is treated as an assault on her freedom.  

Furthermore, feminism views regret as retroactive rape.  In other words, a woman can engage in consensual sex but if she regrets the encounter later, this is the same as the man raping her.  Consider the massive power dynamic this gives the feminist movement if they succeed in normalizing such thinking.  Women would be able to use rape allegations as a control mechanism against any man they sleep with who doesn’t behave in a way they like months or years later. 

Hey, he made her feel regret, so, he has to pay the price.

The politicization of these cases could lead to catastrophic results for society.  Not only do these protests act as jury intimidation and a poisoning of the jury pool, they also reject all reason, logic and evidence for the sake of ideology.  The proper punishment of crime (or the exoneration of the accused through concrete evidence) is a fundamental pillar of any civilization.  The political left may be seeking to sabotage that pillar in yet another strategy to “burn the system to the ground.” 

All-In Podcast hosts Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, and David Friedberg recently discussed the “socialism point of guaranteed return,” a troubling threshold at which economic deterioration drives voters to reject socialist policies and embrace free markets. 

They pointed to rightward shifts in South American presidential elections as evidence of that political shift, with Brazil likely to flip right in the runoff election later this month. 

The hosts suggested France may have already crossed the threshold (See EU bond market meltdown), while warning that the US remains in a phase where progressive policy failures generate demands for more and more government spending rather than a change in direction.

All-In’s David Friedberg explained:

So, the theory is called the socialism point of guaranteed return. Let’s shorten it to SPGR. This is a play on a point of no return. The thing that happens with socialism is that because socialism is so bad as a concept, it literally removes human agency.

It removes the capacity for human progress and it basically takes something away from everyone. Ultimately, socialism always fails. That is like the zeroth law of socialism: it always fails.

First Law of Socialism

The first law of socialism is that you have to cross a threshold before you realize that it has failed.

The Second Law of Socialism

The second law of socialism is that as you have not crossed that threshold, you think more socialism is the answer. As you embrace these kind of leftist policies, giving people free stuff, telling people that they have a guaranteed income.

The more services you provide them, the more they realize that over time those services inflate in cost and the quality of those services inevitably degrades because there is absolutely zero market force to drive progress.

Progress goes away.

That is what we see in the US in housing, in education, and in healthcare, and also in retirement systems. Those are the four biggest problems that are going to lead us down this path.

As a society says these things are not working, the initial solution is we need more of them. More healthcare, more housing, more education provided by the government.

When the government fails to provide good enough healthcare, good enough housing, good enough healthcare that is affordable enough, the answer is more government stuff.

Friedberg continued:

Eventually you reach a point when the system breaks because the government cannot tax and they cannot print, and because they cannot actually provide the services effectively, everyone realizes the socialism thing does not work. That is the socialism point of guaranteed return where the whole system collapses and you return back to the non-socialist state.

He pointed out: 

That is what has happened in Latin America.

Latin America crossed the socialism point of guaranteed return in many of these countries. They realized it and they bounced back.

Perhaps France has crossed it.

Perhaps they have not.

We will see how much deeper they go.

The US has not crossed it.

The US is not yet touched that point, has not hit the rock bottom, and is teetering.

Socialism Point of Guaranteed Return Explained: Why We Must Vote in the Midterms! It is a one-way door. So, the theory is called the socialism point of guaranteed return. Let’s shorten it to SPGR. This is a play on a point of no return. The thing that happens with socialism is that because socialism is so bad as a concept, it literally removes human agency. It removes the capacity for human progress and it basically takes something away from everyone. Ultimately socialism always fails. That is like the zeroth law of socialism: it always fails. First Law of Socialism The first law of socialism is that you have to cross a threshold before you realize that it has failed. The Second Law of Socialism The second law of socialism is that as you have not crossed that threshold, you think more socialism is the answer. As you embrace these kind of leftist policies, giving people free stuff, telling people that they have a guaranteed income. The more services you provide them, the more they realize that over time those services inflate in cost and the quality of those services inevitably degrades because there is absolutely zero market force to drive progress. Progress goes away. That is what we see in the US in housing, in education, and in healthcare, and also in retirement systems. Those are the four biggest problems that are going to lead us down this path. As a society says these things are not working, the initial solution is we need more of them. More healthcare, more housing, more education provided by the government. When the government fails to provide good enough healthcare, good enough housing, good enough healthcare that is affordable enough, the answer is more government stuff. Give more, do more. Point of Guaranteed Return Eventually you reach a point when the system breaks because the government cannot tax and they cannot print, and because they cannot actually provide the services effectively, everyone realizes the socialism thing does not work. That is the socialism point of guaranteed return where the whole system collapses and you return back to the non-socialist state. That is what has happened in Latin America. Latin America crossed the socialism point of guaranteed return in many of these countries. They realized it and they bounced back. Perhaps France has crossed it. Perhaps they have not. We will see how much deeper they go. The US has not crossed it. The US is not yet touched that point, has not hit the rock bottom, and is teetering. We are going to go deeper before we realize that we have crossed this point of guaranteed return where you realize the system does not work. Socialism is the worst idea. That is the zeroth law of socialism: it just does not work. We have to get to that point. The real question right now is, is France there? Is all of Western Europe there? Does it accelerate all of Western Europe through the socialism point of guaranteed return, which is sort of like a black hole event horizon? You go through and then you bounce back out and you come out in this other universe and you are like, okay, we are done with that idea. It is a one-way door.

— Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior (@Andreafreedom76) October 10, 2026

Continuing Friedberg’s thought: Socialist failures have piled up in South America and sparked a once-in-a-generation shift, with voters booting out left-wing socialist regimes for market-friendly right-wing. In fact, Bank of America’s Michael Hartnett pointed this out in something we’ve been telling readers for months about the Latin America political transformation: 

So why is socialism failing around the world today? 

Well, these welfare spending commitments and massive deficit spending can only happen in a low-rate environment. Those days of MMT discussions are long gone, as government bond yields have spiked globally since Covid-19 and keep rising, while higher borrowing costs make it much harder for heavily indebted welfare states to sustain. Hence, yields in developed countries with massive welfare states are blowing out as markets see socialists as a new major risk to stability.

“The recent sharp increase in global interest rates is exposing the unsustainable reality of fiscal policy across most developed economies. The US and France are now in the spotlight, but the argument applies to Japan, the UK and many others. We argue that time-inconsistent fiscal policies are at the root of the problem, exposing debt dynamics to multiple equilibria,” BofA’s head of global economics research, Claudio Irigoyen, wrote in a note on Friday. 

Irigoyen noted, “Policymakers will have a tough time coordinating into the good equilibrium unless politicians show resolve to swallow the bitter medicine. The problem is the political inability to adjust fiscal policy when the financing conditions that accommodated larger deficits disappear.” 

In other words, skyrocketing government bond yields make a heavily indebted welfare state much harder to maintain, and this has unleashed a shift in the Americas from left to right and a possible coming political transformation in Europe, which Nomura analysts have described as “lurching” to the right over the 18-month election cycle.

AfD’s rise in Germany and Le Pen’s lead in French polls are the direct result of the failed and crumbling welfare state, disastrous left-wing deindustrialization policies, and mounting state failures that now leave governments facing difficult choices between higher taxes, reduced benefits, and even more borrowing.

Perhaps this explains why the far left in France is rioting: they see the writing on the wall that all the spending commitments for their glorious welfare state are likely to come undone under a potential Le Pen government.

Socialists are caught between a rock and a hard place because, if they don’t deliver a larger and larger welfare state to their constituents, then the whole idea of not working and receiving free stuff comes crashing down. 

The political pendulum has swung from left to right across the Americas and now Europe. Socialism can no longer be maintained in a high-rate environment. Maybe the ultimate knockout for the welfare state will be persistently high rates.  

Nikita Bier, who most recently led X’s product development, has stayed on as an advisor and revealed on Saturday that Bluesky users have been “coming back to X in droves the last few weeks.”

Bluesky, once pitched as a “Twitter Killer” by corporate media in a highly coordinated information operation, has been nothing less than another failed left-wing experiment. The social platform, which ripped off old Twitter, has transformed into an echo chamber for folks who still suffer from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and for the far left.

“The only group more insufferable than tech people is anti-tech bluesky users, who have been coming back to X in droves the last few weeks,” Bier wrote on X.

He added, “And they’re just discovering that the entire world got rich over the last two years while they were busy arguing with each other about politics and AI. And they’re very, very angry.”

The only group more insufferable than tech people is anti-tech bluesky users, who have been coming back to X in droves the last few weeks. And they’re just discovering that the entire world got rich over the last two years while they were busy arguing with each other about politics and AI. And they’re very, very angry.

— Nikita Bier (@nikitabier) October 10, 2026

X users commented on Bier’s post:

@nikitabier Need feature now ser https://t.co/QMhZzJzXid

— Jason Premo • Acclaim Aerospace (@JasonPremoMFG) October 10, 2026

@nikitabier I like posting my memes everywhere but hide damn they are a bunch of crybabies https://t.co/pXpVJNGMRP

— meme bastard 🍕 (@mask_bastard) October 10, 2026

Make them get a blue butterfly instead of a blue checkmark so we can stay far away from those accounts 😂

— Lumina (@Ultima_Lumina) October 11, 2026

TBH they were always very, very angry

Rage addiction is a terrible disease

— Caveman in a suit (@CavemanInASuit) October 10, 2026

The conversations and breaking news are on X. Bluesky has morphed into an extremist pit for left-wing users who left X in revolt against Elon Musk’s push for free speech because these folks with TDS can’t have a civilized conversation about politics or anything else without getting into a violent shouting match. Bluesky is their so-called “safe space,” but now some appear to be venturing back into the real world. 

Iran-backed Houthi rebels have not officially claimed responsibility for Saturday’s missile attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, which killed 12 people and wounded more than 300. The mass-casualty missile strike raises new questions about the effectiveness of Saudi Arabia’s Western-supplied air and missile defenses, including potential gaps in detection, interception, and/or coverage. It also raises the risk of a wider Gulf conflict. 

Al Jazeera correspondent Yousef Mawry, reporting from Sanaa, wrote early Sunday that the Saudis face a very uncomfortable reality: repeated airstrikes across Yemen have yet to eliminate the Houthis’ ability to launch missiles and one-way attack drones toward the kingdom.

At least 12 killed, more than 300 hurt in Houthi attack on Riyadh airport. Saudi civil aviation authorities earlier Saturday said airport operations were suspended. Read the latest on The Times of Israel. https://t.co/CLr1yymQnN

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) October 11, 2026

“Although Saudi Arabia has said it will retaliate, let’s not forget that it’s carried out many air strikes across Yemen, and the Yemeni group is still able to launch ballistic missiles and drones towards Saudi Arabia,” Mawry wrote.

The missile attack on the international airport late Saturday was the kingdom’s deadliest incident since the Iran war began. The Saudi-led coalition blamed Yemen’s Houthi rebels, describing the attack as a war crime.

🇸🇦 BREAKING – AT LEAST 12 KILLED, 50 INJURED IN HOUTHI ATTACK ON RIYADH AIRPORT At least 12 people were killed and 50 wounded when Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthis struck King Khalid International Airport in Saudi Arabia’s capital on Saturday, according to three officials briefed on the attack who spoke to The New York Times. It was the deadliest attack on a Gulf Arab country since the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran began in February. Senior Houthi official Mohammed al-Bukhaiti claimed responsibility, describing the strike as retaliation for Saudi airstrikes in Yemen, including attacks on civilian infrastructure. Saudi Arabia’s civil aviation authority temporarily suspended airport operations while assessing the damage. The attack follows repeated deadly strikes on the same facility this week, disrupting international air traffic and threatening Riyadh’s ambitions to become a major global aviation and business hub. Saudi warplanes have simultaneously intensified their campaign in Yemen. A spokesman for the Houthi-affiliated health ministry says Saudi airstrikes have killed 91 people since September 3, most of them women and children. That figure has not been independently verified. President Trump said earlier Saturday that the United States may join Saudi strikes against the Houthis, reversing the possibility of direct intervention after Washington repeatedly declined Riyadh’s requests for military action. 📹 @eshge_royayeee https://t.co/c52fNd0YvZ

— The Tectonic (@thetect0nic) October 10, 2026

BREAKING: Saudi Arabia announces that 12 people were killed and 309 wounded in today’s Houthi missile strike against Riyadh Airport. The dead are from 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia – 4 🇧🇩 Bangladesh – 2 🇺🇸 The USA – 1 🇪🇬 Egypt – 1 🇯🇴 Jordan – 1 🇸🇾 Syria – 1 🇸🇩 Sudan – 1 🇵🇸 Palestine – 1 https://t.co/wUmwOD72bn

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 10, 2026

Asked by reporters on Saturday whether the US military would join the Saudi attacks on the Houthis, President Trump responded: “We may. We’re going to look at it.”

“Have you decided whether to join the Saudi strikes on the Houthis?” @POTUS: “We may. We’re going to look at it. We just found out about the recent attack, so we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly.” https://t.co/8aUAneK2xB

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026

Bloomberg reported that the attack disrupted travel ahead of the World Petroleum Congress, scheduled to begin today and last through next Thursday. Airport operations were temporarily suspended, with the flight monitor website Flightradar24 showing roughly 85% of flights canceled.

Al Jazeera quoted Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum, who said the Saudis will likely retaliate forcefully against the Houthis.

Gulf states want to contain the confrontation rather than let it spread across multiple fronts, Thafer told the outlet.

“I think in this situation, compartmentalizing the Houthi issue is in their interest rather than causing further escalation from many fronts,” Thafer said.

Thafer continued, “I still think that the Saudis probably want de-escalation. They don’t want long-term escalation, but the Houthis are making it very difficult by not only being a threat to Saudi national security but also a threat to international maritime security. So this battle is much bigger than just a tit-for-tat.”

International leaders have released statements condemning the attack (via Al Jazeera):

• The Iraqi prime minister’s spokesman, Sabah al-Numan, condemned the attack, warning that it endangered “regional security and stability” and calling for an end to hostilities.
• European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the attack a “dangerous escalation” by Iranian proxies that pushes the region into a spiral of violence that threatens global transport and energy networks.
• EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas denounced the strike as an “appalling act of terror” against civilian infrastructure.
• UK Defense Secretary Wes Streeting said the “completely contemptible” attack highlighted a dangerous pattern of Houthi targeting of civilian sites in Saudi Arabia.
• German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul also condemned the attack as a “terrorist act” against civil aviation and offered sincere condolences to the families of the victims.

Yasmeen al-Eryani, the executive director for knowledge production at the Sanaa Center, told the outlet that the Houthis are trying to put “maximum pressure” on Saudi Arabia. This comes as the US midterms are less than one month away. 

“But they’re also mobilizing the internal front lines in a really major way, moving even away from the west coast battle into Taiz and more densely populated areas,” al-Eryani said.

“We could see further mobilization; they have very high momentum. They will probably continue to capitalize on that momentum, internally and cross-border attacks and by doing this, operationalizing a unification of arenas putting pressure across the region, economically, politically and so on,” she said.

She added that the Houthis were “provoking” Saudi Arabia, the US and regional states, which could potentially join the conflict.

There are unofficial reports that the Saudis have begun striking multiple Houthi targets in Yemen.

NOW: Intense Saudi airstrikes in Yemen against multiple Houthi targets. https://t.co/duj5QuJg2t

— Mossad Commentary (@MOSSADil) October 11, 2026

In markets, Saudi Arabia’s benchmark stock index fell as much as 1%, with most of its constituents in negative territory, including Saudi National Bank and Saudi Aramco.

The attacks risk pushing the Gulf region into a more dangerous phase as US-allied Gulf governments are waking up to the fact that Iran’s proxy network is becoming a shared threat to national security, energy infrastructure, and maritime trade.

Elevated security threats across Ukraine, Europe, and the Gulf are increasing global instability and the risk of conflict spilling across borders. A major concern is that simultaneous crises could reinforce one another and lead to a broader confrontation.

The latest development comes from NATO member Poland, which borders Ukraine, where security services are investigating a suspected plot to assassinate Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz.

🔴Zamach na Tuska? Pilna narada służb Służby otrzymały informację o możliwym zamachu na premiera Donalda Tuska oraz wicepremiera Władysława Kosiniaka-Kamysza. Rzecznik ministra koordynatora służb specjalnych Jacek Dobrzyński poinformował o pilnym spotkaniu ABW i przedstawicieli służb podległych MSWiA Link: https://t.co/4Aatzq6xfE

— Wirtualna Polska (@wirtualnapolska) October 11, 2026

Early Sunday morning, Jacek Dobrzyński, the security services spokesman, wrote on X that the police had received “information…regarding a possible assassination attempt” on Tusk and Kosiniak-Kamysz, who, in addition to serving as defense minister, also serves as deputy prime minister.

Dobrzyński told reporters, “Month after month, year by year, we’re getting more and more threats against Poles. Now we’re talking about the most important people of the country.”

Polish authorities did not link the suspected assassination plot to Russia, but there have been mounting concerns over sabotage and other hybrid attacks against European countries supporting Ukraine. Those officials held an emergency meeting of Poland’s police force, State Protection Service and Internal Security Agency earlier today to discuss the matter.

“As a major conduit for aid to Ukraine, Poland has suffered a spate of suspicious incidents, with multiple cyberattacks on public utilities like water, energy infrastructure and hospitals, and damage to the rail line between Warsaw and the Ukrainian border attributed to Russian intelligence,” according to Bloomberg.

Tusk responds on X:

Po dzisiejszej rozmowie z @ZelenskyyUa jestem absolutnie pewien, że nikt i nic nie złamie Ukrainy i jej Prezydenta w ich walce przeciwko rosyjskiej agresji. Zapewniłem go, że może liczyć na pełną solidarność Polski i Europy z narodem ukraińskim.

— Donald Tusk (@donaldtusk) October 11, 2026

The assassination plot would fall just short of NATO’s Article 5 threshold, which requires an armed attack. Such a credible threat could justify Article 4, which covers threats to a member’s security or political independence. This would allow Poland, a NATO member since 1999, to hold talks with other NATO members to discuss the threat and possible coordinated responses.

This comes days after President Trump announced a deal with Russian President Putin to supply the US with diesel, infuriating the European Deep State, as Ukraine’s Zelensky has ignored the US request to stop hitting Russian refineries. Those Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy assets have been one of the drivers of the global refining crisis.

Trump has also said it’s “time for Ukraine to get a new leader,” while Elon Musk agreed in a comment on our X post: “I agree, time for Ukraine to get a new leader.”

@zerohedge I agree, time for Ukraine to get a new leader

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2026

Meanwhile, the Gulf conflict continues to rage as Iran-backed Houthi rebels are suspected of hitting a Saudi Arabian international airport, resulting in a mass-casualty incident and the risk of a major Saudi response. 

Baltimore City’s image remains deeply shaped by HBO’s hit crime drama, the 2015 riots, an ongoing public safety crisis, decades of deindustrialization, population collapse, and the opioid and drug crisis. Together, those mounting problems have severely weakened the city’s appeal to visitors, residents, and businesses.

Democrats have held Baltimore’s mayor’s office continuously since 1967, placing nearly a six-decade reign under what can only be described as one-party rule by extreme left-wing Democratic queens and kings. This epic trail of destruction and chaos reflects a progressive experiment that has horribly gone wrong and the resulting crime and economic despair.

A population collapse to a 100-year low, absurdly high taxes, and crime have made it nearly impossible for mom-and-pop businesses to operate, even in the nicest parts of town.

Take Federal Hill, a historic neighborhood just south of Baltimore’s failed Inner Harbor. Once a popular spot for bars, restaurants, and college graduates, it has quickly descended into crime.

Local outlet The Baltimore Banner reports that yet another local restaurant is leaving the area.

Blue Moon Too will close its Federal Hill location in spring 2027 after its landlord declined to renew its lease.

Owner Sarah Simington also warned: “The neighborhood has been facing problems with crime.” 

Instead of moving her local brunch spot into the county, a much safer area, as many other restaurants in the city have done since the 2015 riots, Simington will relocate hers to Hampden, a somewhat safer part of the metro area.

Another popular spot in the harbor area that has been transformed into chaos is Fells Point, a popular bar district.

Fox Baltimore reported in June on youth mobs and gunfire that plagued the once-happening bar district, and the footage from the summertime is shocking:

In a video that has been making the rounds on social media, footage shows people running after reportedly hearing gunfire in Fells Point early Saturday morning. 🎥: @lorjuu on Instagram https://t.co/n1sxFiS3SV

— The Baltimore Sun (@baltimoresun) June 17, 2026

More from Fells Point: Imagine wanting to go out for dinner and a few drinks on a Saturday and this is what you walk into 🤦‍♂️ Completely unacceptable https://t.co/cP8lRyezM5

— QE Infinity (@StealthQE4) June 17, 2026

The misery doesn’t stop at Fells Point. In the downtown area known as the Inner Harbor, it’s a ghost town as commercial real estate buildings implode in value. Even Under Armour’s city-within-a-city project saw Goldman pull out of the multibillion-dollar development.

This summer, Moody’s Ratings downgraded the city because of its rapidly deteriorating financial situation, as left-wing Mayor Brandon Scott’s ability to govern properly comes into question.

Moody’s recently said the downgrade “reflects the trend of declining fund balance and cash levels across all government operations, largely concentrated in the utility and internal service funds.”

To Brandon’s credit, murders are significantly down, but that comes after a decade-long violent crime wave. We must add that the damage is already done because Baltimore has seen a massive exodus of residents, losing more than 70,000 people, or about 11% of its population, over the past two decades.

The slow death of Baltimore City has happened under more than a half-century of one-party Democratic rule, and its leaders’ progressive experiment has all but failed.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

💰 Equity Risk Premium Has Vanished, And Stocks Aren’t Cheap.

Last week’s Q4 market outlook laid out why the calendar, earnings, and buybacks lean bullish into year-end. I still think that. But one line in that report deserved more than a sentence. With the 10-year above 5%, Treasuries now offer a “risk-free” return that stocks haven’t matched since 2002. So this week, I rebuilt that claim from the raw data. The equity risk premium, the extra return investors demand for owning stocks over bonds, is the thinnest it’s been in a generation. What history says happens next is the more interesting part.

The Equity Risk Premium Has Turned Negative

The simplest version of the math compares what the S&P 500 earns with what a Treasury note pays. At Tuesday’s record close of 7,818.93, the index traded at about 27 times trailing as-reported earnings, according to Robert Shiller’s data. ChartRow’s independent count is 26.4. Either way, that’s an earnings yield of roughly 3.7%. The 10-year closed at 5.31% on Monday. In other words, every dollar in the index currently “earns” about 1.6 percentage points less than a dollar parked in a government bond.

Notice in the chart above how rarely the spread sits this far below zero. Shiller’s monthly data, now running through October 2026, puts the average since 1950 at about +1.0 point. Aside from the 2009 earnings collapse, the last time stocks yielded this much less than bonds was in 2002.

Someone will tell you trailing earnings are the wrong yardstick when profits are growing at nearly 30%. Fair enough. Use the forward numbers instead. FactSet’s forward P/E of 19.0 implies an earnings yield of about 5.3%, which is right on top of the 10-year. Such is the problem. Even on Wall Street’s most optimistic earnings math, investors get paid next to nothing extra to own stocks over bonds.

A Negative Premium Only Hurts When Stocks Are Expensive

Here’s where it gets interesting, and where I had to check my own bias. I sorted every month since 1950 by its starting premium, then measured the S&P 500’s real total return over the following decade. A negative premium on its own was NOT a reliable sell signal. The 1980s are the reason. Through the first half of that decade, the 10-year yielded well into double digits, stocks earned less than bonds month after month, and investors who bought anyway were rewarded with one of the best ten-year runs the market has ever produced.

The difference was the starting price. In the early 1980s, the S&P 500 carried an earnings yield above 5%, and at times above 12%. Stocks were cheap, and bonds were cheaper. The premium was negative because yields were enormous, and when yields collapsed, both assets soared. Starting points like that averaged a 10.3% real annual return over the next ten years. Only about one in twenty lost money.

Now look at the other bucket. When the premium was negative and the earnings yield was below 5%, the average real return fell to 3.7% per year. More than one in four of those ten-year stretches finished in the red. Most of those starting points came during the 1990s run-up and the dot-com peak. Such is the distinction that matters. Today’s 3.7% earnings yield puts us squarely in the expensive bucket, not the 1980s one.

A negative premium is survivable when you buy cheap. It’s a problem when you pay up for the privilege.

Cash And Bonds Now Pay You To Wait

For the better part of fifteen years, zero-yield money markets fueled the “there is no alternative” trade. Savers got pushed out of the risk curve because cash paid nothing. That flow can run in reverse, and Michael Lebowitz laid out why in “From TINA To TIGA.” Here’s what the alternatives pay today.

“Stocks return 10% over time. Why would I lock in 5%?” 

Because that 10% assumes you start at an average valuation, and we aren’t starting there. Adam Taggart and I covered this on October 3rd in our conversation about buying bonds if a bear market worries you. A 5.3% Treasury held to maturity has no drawdown risk on the way to that return.

The bulls do have a valid point. When you measure stocks against inflation-protected Treasuries, instead of nominal ones, the premium survives. Currently, that premium ranges from roughly 0.8 to 2.3 points, depending on whose earnings you trust. That’s a thin margin, and the higher end depends on nearly 30% earnings growth arriving on schedule. For me, there is also some irony here. In my view, yields will eventually come down due to the disinflationary impact of debt on the economy. This is why I’ve argued for keeping bonds in your portfolio rather than ditching them. If yields fall, the premium rebuilds from the bond side, and stocks get rescued by the same math that hurts them today. If they don’t, the comparison to 1997 through 2002 stops being an analogy.

Notably, the recovery math is what investors consistently underestimate. We previously discussed that if a portfolio suffers a 24.7% drawdown, it requires a 33% gain to get back to even. However, if it suffers a more “Financial Crisis” impact of a 52.6% decline, that 111% recovery can take years to return to the previous level. Bonds not only reduce losses but also shorten the climb back, and that difference compounds over the years of a retirement timeline.

Here is another crucial point for owning bonds in your portfolio, particularly if nearing retirement. Income is better today than at any point in two decades. The 10-year yields 5.3%, more than three times what it paid at the end of 2021. That is contractual cash flow rather than hoped-for appreciation, which means you aren’t forced to sell equities into weakness to fund a withdrawal.

Lastly, the behavioral issue determines outcomes. DALBAR’s 2026 study found that the average fixed-income investor earned 2.41% in 2025, while the Bloomberg Aggregate returned 7.30%, a gap of 4.89 percentage points. Investors pulled a record 2.30% of assets out in a single month, July 2025.8 Read that again. The asset class returned more than 7%, while the people who owned it captured a third of the return. They sold into the drawdown and bought back after the recovery, which is the same behavior that the stock-bond correlation debate is now encouraging on a much larger scale.

What Should Investors Do Now

Let’s state the obvious: none of this discussion is about wholesale dumping of stocks before year-end. As discussed in last week’s report, the seasonal and earnings tailwinds still stand. Furthermore, the equity risk premium is a ten-year signal, not a ten-week timing tool. However, it does argue for changing what you own and how much risk you carry while you own it. A negative equity risk premium only normalizes in two ways. Bond yields fall, or stock prices do. The table below presents both outcomes simultaneously.

For our clients, this means a few recent changes. We shortened the duration slightly, but are still maintaining the overall bond allocations across all stock/bond allocation models. This is not because bonds are exciting, nor because the past five years treated them kindly. We keep those bond allocations because they remain the cheapest insurance against the one scenario that most severely damages a retirement plan. That is when a deep equity drawdown arrives early in the withdrawal phase.

Owning bonds in your portfolio is a choice. If you choose not to, there is nothing wrong with that decision as long as you can manage portfolio risk. If you choose to own bonds in your portfolio, they should be sized to your circumstances rather than to a number somebody printed in 1952. Forty percent is not a law of nature. Your income needs, your time horizon, and your honest tolerance for watching a statement fall determine that figure.

Understand the limitation clearly. Duration protects you in a growth shock and hurts you in an inflation shock. If inflation is the risk that keeps you awake, the answer is inflation-sensitive assets and a shorter duration.

The bond market is finally paying investors to be patient. The stock market is still charging full price for impatience.

🔑 Key Catalysts Next Week

Two narratives collide next week. Q3 earnings season starts in earnest with the big banks, and the September inflation data lands before the Fed goes quiet ahead of its Oct. 27-28 meeting. Monday is Columbus Day, so stocks trade while the bond market stays closed.

Tuesday morning brings JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, along with Johnson & Johnson and UnitedHealth. Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Progressive, and ASML follow on Wednesday. Thursday is the heavyweight session, with Taiwan Semiconductor, Charles Schwab, PNC, U.S. Bancorp, BNY, and Prologis. Travelers closes the week on Friday.

Banks are expected to grow earnings 15.2%, well above the 4.4% expected for the financial sector overall. Watch net interest income, loan growth, and credit quality with yields near their highest level since 2002. If the banks show loan growth and steady credit with the 10-year above 5%, the broadening case gets real support. TSMC on Thursday is the most important read on AI demand after this week’s chip selloff, and ASML gives the equipment side a day earlier.

On the data side, Wednesday’s CPI report is the main event after August’s headline rate of 3.4%. Thursday is crowded, with PPI expected to be up 0.5% for the month, retail sales expected to be up 0.3%, plus the Empire State and Philly Fed surveys. Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack speaks Monday.

Markets are currently pricing in roughly a 20% chance of an October hike, but traders see about an 80% chance of a move by December. The Fed’s quiet period begins Saturday, Oct. 17, so next week is the last chance for officials to shape expectations before the meeting. Expect any hawkish or dovish lean in their remarks to show up quickly in the 2-year yield.

Oil remains the wild card. Trump’s pledge not to strike Iran before the Nov. 3 midterms pulled Brent back, but it still sits above $100.

The single most market-moving event is Wednesday’s CPI. A soft print would support the “pause” camp and pull the 10-year back toward 5%. A hot one revives bets on December rate hikes and pushes yields higher, which matters more than usual given that stocks offer little premium over bonds.

 A record standing on a few names is NOT the same as a broad advance.

For traders, the playbook is simple. Don’t chase the market while it’s sitting at the resistance of previous highs. A close above the record and the upper band near 7,846, with semis participating, would open a run toward 8,000. Pullbacks toward the 50-day average near 7,700 are the place to add exposure. A break below the Sept. 16 low of 7,567, which also lines up with the lower Bollinger Band, would warrant raising hedges and cash. We continue to recommend rebalancing winners back to target weights ahead of earnings and using the 50-day average as the stop-loss line.

The level that matters next week is the record close at 7,818.93. A close above it with chips joining in confirms the breakout. A failure there, with bank earnings and CPI on deck, likely keeps the index boxed between 7,700 and 7,850. A close below 7,700 would shift the near-term trend back to neutral.

Authored by Aghiad Hegazi via The Cradle

Over recent weeks, gas lines in eastern Syria and near Damascus have been hit by explosions, interrupting supplies to power stations and cutting electricity across large areas. Two attacks on sections identified as the Jbessa gas line were officially described as sabotage. 

A separate blast at the Tishreen plant remains under investigation. Their timing has drawn attention as Syria negotiates a role in the routes carrying Iraqi oil and regional gas to the Mediterranean and beyond. Even a limited strike on a pipeline can delay repairs, reduce power generation, and unsettle investors weighing projects that will cost billions. 

The question is who stands to gain from keeping Syria’s energy network vulnerable, and how much the available evidence can tell us about the perpetrators.

The Jbessa line & the Tishreen blast

The first confirmed incident came on August 18, when an explosion stopped pumping through the gas export line from the Jbessa gas plant in the countryside of Hasakah, northeastern Syria. The Syrian Petroleum Company said its preliminary investigation found deliberate sabotage. 

The line serves a region containing much of Syria’s oil and gas infrastructure, and the interruption affected gas deliveries to electricity turbines. Crews isolated the wells, closed the safety valves, and began repairs. No injuries were reported. That first attack showed how a strike on a single valve could reach far beyond the site itself, with electricity users elsewhere bearing the consequences.

On September 28, the Jbessa gas line was attacked near Al-Shula in the Deir Ezzor countryside. An explosion at a sectional valve set off a fire and again halted the flow of gas from Jbessa toward power stations. Energy Minister Mohammad al-Bashir later said explosives had been used. This time, the repair crews had to replace an 18-meter section of 16-inch pipe. The company announced on October 2 that pumping had resumed after the work was completed. 

According to its land-gas director, the line had carried about 950,000 cubic meters a day. Its repeated targeting has therefore struck a significant part of the gas supply on which Syrian power generation depends. The Jbessa line feeds the gas network through the central region, including the area around Al-Furqlus in eastern Homs. This matters at a time when Damascus is trying to repair existing infrastructure and build new cross-border links. 

The proposed Iraqi oil route to Baniyas on the coast is a separate project, and there is no evidence that the attacks on Jbessa directly targeted that future pipeline. Yet damage to operating energy facilities carries an obvious warning for governments and companies contemplating a much larger transit system across Syrian territory. They would need confidence that long stretches of pipe, pumping equipment, and the workers maintaining them could be protected.

Two other violent incidents occurred on September 30. On the Masyaf Bridge in western Homs, unidentified gunmen opened fire on a bus carrying civilian workers, killing seven and wounding four. Initial SANA reports described civilian workers, while regional reporting identified them as engineers and employees of a private electricity company. The attack occurred two days after the Shula sabotage, but no investigation has established a link between the incidents.

That evening, an explosion on a gas line supplying the Tishreen thermal plant in the Damascus countryside forced Tishreen, Deir Ali, and Al-Nasiriyah out of service, bringing wider power cuts. Firefighters contained the blaze, and the authorities began restoring gas supplies. Unlike the two Jbessa incidents, the cause was unresolved when Energy Minister Bashir spoke at the site. He said inspectors would determine whether a technical fault, an attack, or sabotage had caused the blast after the area cooled. 

Who benefits from a weakened Syria?

The Syrian government has not named a party responsible for the pipeline sabotage. Journalist and political writer Bassel al-Mohammed, speaking to The Cradle, argues that the repeated attacks on major gas facilities are difficult to treat as isolated incidents. 

Their effect, he says, extends beyond the physical damage to a valve or section of pipe. Each interruption adds to the impression that Syria is an unsafe place for investment in energy infrastructure, just as Damascus is seeking partners to restore the sector and connect it to neighboring states.

For Mohammed, Israel is among the most prominent potential beneficiaries of Syria’s economic and security weakness. A Syrian state struggling to rebuild its infrastructure would have less room to resist pressure in any future political or security settlement, he says. 

He also points to Syria’s prospective role in the Arab Gas Pipeline, which connects the Jordanian border with the Turkish border through Syrian territory, amid the search for routes less exposed to disruption at the Strait of Hormuz.

The distribution of the incidents, including the damage around Tishreen, raises questions for him about whether a group with knowledge of critical facilities is operating across more than one area. 

Israeli news is claiming that Iran struck the gas pipeline near Damascus, Syria. Many Syrians are pointing the finger at ISIS and even Israel itself, but we don’t know. Some Syrians are skeptical of the Israel claim because it is at war with Iran; the claim could be self-serving. Syrian officials stated that the exact cause of the blast remains unknown and could be a technical malfunction, an attack, or an act of sabotage. The explosion ruptured a gas line in the Haran Al-Awamid area, forcing three major power plants (Tishreen, Deir Ali, and Nasiriyah) offline and worsening electricity shortages. Earlier in the week, another pipeline explosion in eastern Syria was blamed by authorities on sabotage, though no group has been identified or accused directly for either event. What is clear, is that Syria will continue to struggle economically. Foreign investors will be spooked. And poverty will bite harder.

— Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) October 2, 2026

On September 29, between the Shula and Tishreen incidents, the Syrian Petroleum Company inaugurated a further section of the Arab Gas Pipeline project at Al-Furqlus. Officials said the completed segment adds 186 kilometers to roughly 380 kilometers of existing line, bringing the connected network to about 566 kilometers, with a stated capacity of up to 11 million cubic meters of gas per day. 

The two-way design gives Damascus room to bargain over future gas flows. For now, a route to Europe remains a prospect – the supply and transit agreements needed to make it work have yet to follow.

If such links eventually carry more gas northward, they could compete with some plans to expand Israeli gas sales from Eastern Mediterranean fields, including Leviathan and Tamar. The degree of competition would depend on supply contracts, prices, and the capacity actually brought into service. It cannot be assumed from the existence of a pipeline alone. 

Still, Mohammed sees a strategic interest for Israel in limiting Syria’s ability to emerge as a reliable corridor, especially while Damascus remains exposed to Israeli military pressure in the south.

Energy routes & Israeli calculations

The rivalry over Syria also sits within a wider contest for the routes moving oil and gas from Iraq and the Gulf. Turkish plans for exports through Ceyhan and Syrian hopes of reopening a Mediterranean outlet would offer producers alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz. 

Several of these lines are proposals or rehabilitation schemes rather than working substitutes for established Gulf terminals. Their prospects depend on financing, security, technical surveys, and agreements among the governments involved. Treating all the routes as if they already exist would exaggerate both Syria’s current leverage and the immediate threat they pose to rival transit hubs.

In February, The Cradle traced the possible Israeli origin of some gas supplied to Syria through Jordan, while noting the opacity of the contracts and the difficulty of establishing the precise source of every shipment. The Begin-Sadat Center later discussed Israeli gas reaching Syria indirectly through regional arrangements.  A more diverse supply network could weaken that dependence, but the claim that new transit lines would cause Damascus and Amman to dispense with Israeli gas altogether goes beyond what the available contracts establish.

Syria and Iraq signed memoranda in July on rehabilitating the long-dormant Kirkuk–Baniyas oil line. Syrian Petroleum Company chief Youssef Qiblawi has discussed the possibility of work beginning in the first quarter of 2027. 

The route would give Iraqi crude an outlet on the Mediterranean, yet it still faces major engineering, financing, and security hurdles. The agreements mark a political commitment to examine the corridor, not the completion of a new pipeline. Syria’s coastal port facilities would also require the capacity and protection to handle sustained exports if the project moves ahead.

Security researcher Aziz Moussa reads the sabotage as a possible regional message. Speaking to The Cradle, he places Israel among the suspects because of its continuing pressure on Damascus and its incursions into Quneitra. 

In his assessment, repeated blows to energy facilities could deepen Syria’s security fragility, erode confidence in reconstruction, and complicate plans for an energy corridor. He also suggests that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have political reasons to raise the pressure. None of those considerations, Moussa acknowledges, demonstrates that Israeli aircraft or drones carried out the attacks; Syrian officials have not presented evidence of such a strike on the Jbessa line.

Moussa notes a difficulty with that theory. Israel has generally used overt or attributable airstrikes against Syrian military targets. A covert attack on civilian gas infrastructure while security arrangements are under discussion would represent a different pattern. 

He therefore leaves open another possibility: ISIS cells, which have attacked infrastructure in Syria and Iraq before. Establishing responsibility would require physical evidence from the sites and a credible investigation into how the attackers reached them.

Israeli energy analysts have nevertheless taken notice of the Iraqi route. In a paper for the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), researcher Vita Avrahamov argues that restoring the Kirkuk–Baniyas corridor could reduce Israel’s prospects of becoming a major transit hub for West Asian energy bound for Europe. 

Proposals to use the Eilat–Ashkelon pipeline and link it with Gulf networks would face a competing route across Syria. In an N12 article, she also says that each investment strengthening Syria as an energy transit state gives Gulf states and Europe more alternatives, reducing the incentive to develop a competing route through Israel. 

Her assessment sees advantages for Israel in oil exporters gaining alternatives to Hormuz and reducing Iranian leverage. The economic implications are thus mixed, even from an Israeli strategic perspective.

Avrahamov’s warning shows what an Iraqi route through Syria could cost Israel. Damascus, meanwhile, is seeking to carry the region’s energy across a network that attackers have already disrupted twice. Its ambitions will depend as much on keeping those lines operating as on the agreements signed to extend them.