China and the EU took a significant step Monday toward easing their long-running electric vehicle trade dispute after Brussels released rules that could allow Chinese exporters to replace punitive tariffs with negotiated pricing commitments, according to the South China Morning Post.

The European Commission said companies may submit price undertakings that must be “adequate to eliminate the injurious effects of the subsidies and provide equivalent effect to duties”. Exporters are encouraged to include shipment limits and future EU investments, with assessments conducted under WTO rules. If accepted, the EU would revise its existing regulations.

The conflict dates back to the EU’s 2023 anti-subsidy probe, which resulted in 2024 duties of 7.8% to 35.3% for five years. China responded with investigations into European cognac, dairy and pork. While the tariffs technically remain, the new framework could replace them with minimum import prices.

China’s Ministry of Commerce welcomed the move, saying “the progress fully reflects the spirit of dialogue and the outcomes of consultations between China and the EU.” It added: “It shows that both China and the EU have the ability and willingness to properly resolve differences through dialogue and consultation under the framework of WTO rules and maintain the stability of automotive industrial and supply chains in China, the EU and the whole world,” calling it “conducive not only to ensuring the healthy development of China-EU economic and trade relations, but also to safeguarding the rules-based international trade order.”

SCMP writes that negotiations gained momentum after the EU began reviewing a price undertaking offer in December from Volkswagen’s Chinese joint venture. Economist Alicia Garcia-Herrero of Natixis called the potential shift from tariffs to price floors a major development.

China’s chamber of commerce in the EU described the move as a “soft landing” and “a constructive step forward for China–EU trade and investment cooperation, as well as for the broader bilateral relationship”, adding: “The consensus and arrangements reached will significantly strengthen business confidence, [and] create a more stable and predictable environment for Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers and related supply-chain companies investing and operating in Europe.”

Cui Hongjian of Beijing Foreign Studies University cautioned the change remains largely technical, noting that “At present, both sides are grappling with a certain lack of confidence [in each other].” Garcia-Herrero warned the scheme could weaken EU trade enforcement, raise costs for European buyers, and deepen Europe’s reliance on Chinese investment.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Germany faces a massive wave of business transfers. The decline in entrepreneurship and self-employment has multiple causes; blaming the young generation’s supposed obsession with work-life balance belongs more to the realm of fables.

When a productive and market-successful company exits the competition, productive capital is lost irretrievably. Jobs vanish, supply chains collapse, and established customer relationships dissolve. Often, foreign competitors step in to occupy the freed market niches. Value creation is lost for the domestic economy.

KfW Panel Shows the Numbers

A recent survey by the KfW Mittelstand Panel shows that Germany confronts exactly this fundamental problem. A demographically driven succession crisis is emerging: over 57% of Mittelstand business owners are now over 55. According to KfW, around 1.1 million business transfers or closures will occur by 2029 due to age. The survey of 13,000 firms also shows that about one in four companies at risk is considering a full shutdown because no suitable successor or buyer is available to fill the vacancy.

Mathematically, the situation is stark: in coming years, roughly 114,000 business closures are expected annually, while only about 109,000 orderly successions occur. The net balance is negative. New business formation would be required to close the gap—an endeavor naturally difficult in Germany. The succession problem spans all sectors and company sizes, from small craft shops or bakeries to classic industrial Mittelstand companies. The pool of potential business transferors grows due to demographics, while the pool of successors continues to shrink—a classic demographic gap.

The Ifo Institute paints an equally sobering picture: around 42% of family businesses cannot find an internal successor. Young people increasingly avoid taking over existing companies, preferring well-paid employment with social security and avoiding the substantial risks tied to entrepreneurship.

A New Reality

What drives the growing succession problem in Germany? Just a few years ago, aging society and rising closures could be cited alongside productivity trends and a shrinking domestic market as natural reasons for a contraction in the economy’s supply side.

Today, however, Germany’s population has grown by several million in a few years due to migration policies. With shrinking economic output, Germans are increasingly trapped in a spiral of scarcity. Alongside eroding productivity and industrial decline, massive redistribution programs benefiting those who have never contributed productively push the country’s productive class into economic tight spots.

And honestly: who wants to take entrepreneurial responsibility in such an anti-business climate? A country where leading officials, from Lars Klingbeil to Bärbel Bas, even the Chancellor, openly attack entrepreneurs depending on the day’s mood—while a compliant press gives them carte blanche for all manner of rhetorical nonsense.

It begs the question: how has self-employment, once a cornerstone for innovation, family traditions, risk capital, and breaking stagnant markets, decayed so profoundly?

In principle, anyone pursuing a serious entrepreneurial vision pays little attention to political chatter or bureaucratic whim—but in Germany, beyond demographics and a lack of successors, politically engineered realities make takeovers and sales extraordinarily difficult.

Structural Obstacles

Inheritance law, nearing another reform, targets the substance of Mittelstand firms—more than a mere deterrent. In many cases, succession becomes economically unviable. Complex, multi-heir transfers are costly, liquidity-straining, and bureaucratically labyrinthine. Potential inheritors or buyers face an entire economic crisis environment, alongside internal cultural shocks in companies tied closely to their founders.

Succession processes often end in frustration because tax, inheritance, and corporate law link transfers to complex conditions, deadlines, and exceptions monitored for years. Restructuring, investment, or personnel decisions can jeopardize tax benefits and trigger retroactive liabilities. The economy shrinks, fiscal pressures rise annually—most recently via CO₂ levies and commercial tax hikes to cover municipal deficits. No recovery is in sight. Germany is only at the beginning of deindustrialization and structural collapse.

The Green Deal looms—a future-destroying program for the next generation, who will one day see “Fridays for Future” protests and climate activists as symptoms of a severe societal illness no one restrained.

Cultural Retreat

Zooming out, the social and cultural climate reveals another key issue: society has largely abandoned family traditions. The collapse of reproduction rates reflects even in entrepreneur families. Passing a business to children and integrating them early into operations is increasingly the exception.

This is symptomatic of a deeper problem: belief in economic futures has eroded. Prosperity was once a promise for achievement; today it is often merely a state-managed allocation problem—via subsidies or a welfare apparatus consuming about a third of GDP. Society appears frozen. State institutions and parties shield themselves from criticism by framing entrepreneurs as greedy.

Current discourse demonstrates that conservative values, generational thinking, and meritocratic consensus are essential for national economic advancement. Change will occur when society realizes that wealth cannot be printed or centrally planned; it requires individuals willing to invest creativity, diligence, and courage into innovative products and services demanded by free markets.

In short: the turning point comes when Germany sheds the rotten patina of state control and recommits to bourgeois values of freedom, family, and economic ascent. That is the pivot.

* * *

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a Gerrman is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Terry Cowan via Substack

There is no way to put a pretty face on our most recent regime-change adventure. It is pig-ugly, and not defendable on any level, or from any angle or perspective. The reality of it all is plain to see. The Administration boldfacedly asks, as the old saying goes, Who are you going to believe; me or your lying eyes?. Only a political toad like, say, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, would respond that they needed more information to get the “full picture” before they could possibly comment on America’s action against the sovereign government of Venezuela.

I carry no water for the Chavez/Maduro regime. I am about as ambivalent towards the Venezuelan government as a person could be. This is for two reasons: 1) I am not a Cuban-American who, at least politically, are obsessesed with anything even tangentially connected to Castro’s Cuba, and 2) Maduro is their business, not ours-it is for them to sort out. The silly charge of narcoterrorism is the WMD of this generation.

At this point, it is not exactly clear what the Administration has accomplished. The Presidential couple has been surgically extracted from Caracas. The blockade is still in place, but then so is the Venezuelan government under Delcy Rodriquez, who is decidedly off-script. (I do find the tangential side-lining of the the ever-so-eager recent Nobel “Peace” Prize winner to be extremely satisfying. She has learned the hard way what many others before her have so learned. Her support in Venezuela is apparently so minimal that she does not even rise to the level of a useful puppet for Rubio.) I suppose that, in time, we will have a show trial in New York City for the Maduros, its outcome fore-ordained; the very thing we condemned the Soviets for back in the bad old days. But then, this should not be surprising in what I have heard called our “post-Constitutional” age.

I am fascinated by the logistics of this admittedly extraordinary and ruthlessly efficient covert attack. From what I can gather, these forces never engaged the Venezuelan army directly. Maduro relied on 22 Cuban bodyguards and a Security Detail, both operating outside of army channels. The U.S. had an army of covert CIA operatives and assets in Caracas, all trained in the fine art of engineering protests, demonstrations, color revolutions, and regime-change. These spooks were able to bribe his Security Detail. The commandos dropped in, while the Security Detail stood back as they killed the 22 Cubans and extracted the Maduros. The Russians were on the way, but arrived just after the completion of the mission. When they discovered who had been bribed to do this, it is my understanding that he was executed.

And there it is. No need to cue-up Lee Greenwood here. I recently read an accusation against someone as “being against everything this country stands for.” That is a loaded statement, to be sure. What does our country stand for anymore? One thing for certain is that we stand for is regime change. Dr. Lindsey O’Rourke’s Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War documents 70 such regime changes between 1947 and 1989 (excellent interview, here).

Dr. Jeffrey Sachs states that that number is now right at 100, which he characterizes as an addiction, overthrowing countries left and right when we wants something they have: Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-2025, Ukraine in 2014-present, etc.

As he often does, Dr. Sachs recently addressed the UN Security Council, commenting this time on the situation in Venezuela. A few points:

• The core of the UN Charter is Article 2 Section 4 which upholds the sovereignty of nations.

• The job of the Security Council is not to judge Maduro’s fitness as a leader, but to try to offer some protection to countries.

• Sachs then presented the Security Council was a brief outline of recent U.S./Venezuelan history, reminding them that the U.S. had been trying to topple the Chavez/Maduro regime since 2002.

• In 2007, a great tragedy befell Venezuela when it was discovered that they were sitting atop the largest oil reserves in the world.

• In 2014, a CIA/NGO color revolution was attempted.

• In 2015, Obama placed sanctions on Venezuela.

• In 2016, following orders, he declared the country to be a “threat to our national security.”

• In 2017, DJT wondered aloud to two Latin American Presidents why he could not just go in and capture Venezuela.

• He was informed of the danger in this, so he upped the sanctions to crush the Venezuelan oil industry. By 2020, production had fallen 75% and personal GDP had collapsed by 65% in Venezuela, according to the IMF.

• And then about the same time, his administration announced that the hitherto unknown Juan Guido was the real President of Venezuela. Many of our European vassal states went along meekly; in fact, you can hear echoes of that in Macron’s reaction now.

• He then asked the Security Council, “Do we have International Law, or do we have anarchy?”

The answer to the last question is pretty obvious. Threats have been made to six countries since the Venezuelan attack: Mexico, Columbia, Denmark, Nigeria, Cuba, and Iran. A great champion of the United Nations, Dr. Sachs claims that it is not dead, but it is on life-support. Any commitment for international law is certainly not coming from us. In fact, we are rushing back to the world of great power politics and spheres of influece, with all that that implies in terms of war and aggression. Dr. Sachs describes the situation as dire, given the nuclear age that we are all lulled into forgetting: being led by a “completely impulsive out of control ill-informed manipulable and manipulative individual atop the Deep State.“ Dr. Sachs has a fearless aspect to his commentary. May he survive for many years yet.

I was in South America when we attacked Venezuela. I saw coverage on the Asuncion news channels, and spoke briefly to a couple of Paraguayans about it. They shrugged in resignation, and basically said that when America wants something, what can you do? Perhaps someday someone will do something. But in the meantime, I dug a Spanish phrase out of my memory: lo siento.

* * *

Who can buy a government so cheap?

Change a cabinet without a squeak?

…Who can get a budget that’s so great?

Who will be the 51st state?

This week has marked another grim milestone in the nearly four-year long Russia-Ukraine war. The conflict has just entered its 1,419th day – which means it has officially surpassed the entirety of the historic Soviet campaign against invading Nazi Germany, which lasted 1,418 days from June 1941 to May 1945.

Red Army forces eventually drove Nazi troops back from the Volga River all the way to Berlin, before seizing the German capital. But in today’s war, the 1,419th day is just another in a long one in a tragic and grinding war of attrition, where it is believed each side has lost literally hundreds of thousands.

Russia definitely has the upper hand and momentum on the battlefield, but it’s been a slow and deadly slog, with The Times of London reporting Monday that despite prolonged combat, Russian advances in the Donetsk region amount to roughly 30 miles from their original positions.

Ukraine’s armed forces have in large part been propped up by many billions in weapons, training, and funds poured in by NATO and Western backers of Zelensky.

A recent study by the BBC’s Russian service and Mediazona – both largely anti-Putin outfits, found that at least 160,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, but the true figure may be significantly higher. It could also be lower, as Western sources have incentive to exaggerate for propaganda purposes (just as Russia would have incentive to underestimate).

At the same time, most international reports and war monitors say Ukraine’s casualties could be many times that figure. On both sides, a whole generation of young men is being wiped out.

Efforts to achieve peace by the Trump administration have so far failed, but at least the lines of communications are still open between Washington and Moscow. 

Ukrainian officials have warned that Russian troops are preparing renewed offensives in the north, including areas near the city of Sumy, at a moment the conflict is still only at the legal level of ‘special military operation’ in the Kremlin’s eyes, and not a full state of war which could require societal mobilization.

Over in Ukraine, the war has created the single biggest army in Europe, as recent analysis in The Wall Street Journal detailed: 

When the war with Russia eventually ends, Ukraine will be left with a military larger and with more recent experience than any of its European backers’.

Whether it can outlast Russia’s long-term designs in the event of any peace deal is a question for the entire continent, which now sees Ukraine as a bulwark against Moscow’s ambitions. 

Finding the money and personnel to maintain 800,000 troops and piles of equipment while devising new capabilities will be among the Ukrainian government’s hardest tasks in the immediate aftermath of the war. European Union leaders recently said they would lend Ukraine 90 billion euros, around $105 billion, fending off a looming cash crunch in Kyiv and helping the Ukrainian army keep fighting as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky compete for President Trump’s ear.

Western leaders have meanwhile constantly reiterated their support for Ukraine while accusing Moscow of dragging out the conflict, and yet few have still recognized that Russia is genuine and legitimate in saying constant NATO expansion has led to this.

Trump has at times hinted he understands Moscow’s grievances, but has still seemed to escalate behind the scenes, such as authorizing US intelligence assistance to Ukrainian drone attacks deep inside Russian territory.

Authored by Justin Pak via The Mises Institute,

Money is often described as neutral, technical, or merely instrumental—a passive medium facilitating exchange within an otherwise political society. This view is not only mistaken; it is profoundly misleading. Money is the hidden constitution of every political order. It determines which actions are possible, which institutions survive, which risks are rewarded, and which failures are forgiven. While constitutions proclaim rights and legislatures debate policy, money silently governs outcomes.

For this reason, the structure of a monetary system is never merely economic. It is moral, political, and civilizational.

From the perspective of Austrian and heterodox political economy, the modern fiat monetary system represents not a refinement of earlier monetary forms but a radical departure from them—one whose defining feature is the removal of constraint. Historically, money emerged as a market phenomenon rather than a state creation. Carl Menger demonstrated that money arises organically as the most saleable commodity within an economy, a process driven by voluntary exchange rather than decree. Ludwig von Mises later formalized this insight through the regression theorem, showing that money must originate in a good valued for its non-monetary uses in order to acquire exchange value at all. Gold and silver did not become money because states declared them so; states declared them money because markets already had.

Fiat money reverses this logic. It does not arise from scarcity or market selection but from legal privilege. Its acceptance depends not on earned trust but on enforcement through legal tender laws, taxation, and institutional inertia. What presents itself as sovereign currency is, in practice, state credit circulating as money. This distinction is not semantic. It marks the difference between a system disciplined by external reality and one governed by discretion.

That discretion is concentrated in the institution of central banking. Central banks are often portrayed as neutral guardians of stability, technocratic referees standing above politics. In reality, they function as cartel managers for the financial system, coordinating outcomes that could not survive under competitive conditions. By suppressing interest rates, guaranteeing liquidity, and acting as lenders of last resort, central banks shield privileged institutions from failure while preserving the appearance of market order. Failure is not abolished; it is postponed. And because it is postponed, it accumulates, growing larger and more destructive with each cycle.

This structure produces an inversion of capitalist discipline. In genuine markets, profit and loss serve as signals, rewarding foresight and penalizing error. Under central banking, profits remain private during credit-fueled expansions, while losses are declared systemic during contractions and transferred to the public through bailouts, inflation, and monetary debasement. Risk-taking is rewarded precisely because it is underwritten; prudence is punished through negative real interest rates and competitive disadvantage. Institutions that restrain leverage are displaced by those that exploit it. What remains is not capitalism but state-protected finance, sustained by political necessity rather than economic viability.

The manipulation of interest rates lies at the heart of this transformation. In classical theory, interest rates coordinate time preferences across society, balancing present consumption against future uncertainty. They are prices, emerging from the interaction of savers and borrowers. In modern fiat systems, interest rates are no longer prices at all. They are policy signals, imposed to achieve macroeconomic targets defined by central planners. This substitution of administrative judgment for market coordination creates a profound monetary hierarchy.

Those closest to the source of money creation enjoy the lowest borrowing costs. Sovereign governments finance deficits cheaply, substituting monetary expansion for taxation. Large banks access central liquidity directly. Major corporations issue debt at compressed spreads, insulated from true risk. As one moves farther from the issuance point, costs rise. Small businesses face higher rates and tighter conditions. Households absorb inflation and credit costs simultaneously. Peripheral nations borrow in foreign currencies, exposed to exchange risk they cannot control. Proximity to money creation becomes a determinant of survival. Access replaces productivity as the primary economic advantage.

Because money enters the economy unevenly, monetary expansion always entails political choice. There is no neutral increase in the money supply. Every expansion selects beneficiaries. The era of quantitative easing made this impossible to deny. Liquidity flowed overwhelmingly into financial assets—equities, bonds, and real estate—while wages lagged and productive investment stagnated. This outcome was publicly justified as a “wealth effect,” the belief that rising asset prices would stimulate broader economic activity. In practice, it functioned as asset patronage, enriching those who already owned capital while widening the gap between financial wealth and earned income.

The productive economy increasingly gave way to financial engineering. Growth appeared robust on balance sheets even as real capacity hollowed out. The illusion of prosperity was sustained by rising asset prices rather than rising productivity. What was described as stabilization was, in reality, a redistribution of claims on future output toward those nearest the monetary spigot.

Creation, however, is only one side of the monetary cycle. Fiat systems must also retrieve money, and they do so through inflation, interest, and dependency. Inflation silently erodes savings, punishing deferred consumption and rewarding leverage. Interest extracts future labor, binding individuals to obligations denominated in a currency whose purchasing power is systematically diluted. Debt concentrates ownership, converting missed payments into asset transfers and accelerating consolidation during downturns. Citizens are increasingly compelled to borrow not to expand opportunity but to survive—to obtain housing, education, healthcare, or even the means to start a business. Debt becomes a mechanism of behavioral control. Default becomes a tool of dispossession.

This system depends on opacity for its survival. Modern monetary regimes are deliberately complex. Emergency facilities are disclosed after the fact. Beneficiaries are obscured. Balance sheets are framed as technical artifacts rather than political instruments. Language is abstracted to discourage scrutiny. Inflation becomes “accommodation.” Bailouts become “liquidity support.” As Murray Rothbard observed, complexity functions as camouflage. A system that cannot withstand transparency relies on obscurity to preserve legitimacy.

The corruption of fiat money does not end at national borders; dollar hegemony globalizes it. Because the US dollar functions as the world’s reserve currency, Federal Reserve policy becomes global monetary policy by default. Foreign states must hold dollars to stabilize trade, borrow in dollars to access capital, and absorb the consequences of US monetary decisions over which they have no control. When the Fed eases, capital floods into emerging markets, inflating bubbles and encouraging dollar-denominated debt. When the Fed tightens, currencies collapse, debts become unpayable, and crises erupt. What appears as domestic stabilization at the center manifests as devastation at the periphery.

This arrangement constitutes a form of seigniorage imperialism. The issuing state acquires real goods, labor, and assets in exchange for liabilities it can expand at will. The costs are exported through exchange-rate volatility, debt crises, and externally imposed austerity. Fiat corruption thus scales globally, transforming monetary dominance into an instrument of geopolitical power.

History offers abundant confirmation. From the credit expansion of the 1920s and the deepening of the Great Depression through intervention, to the abandonment of gold convertibility in 1971 and the explosion of debt that followed, to the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath of bailouts and consolidation, the pattern repeats. Each crisis is framed as exceptional. Each intervention becomes precedent. Each rescue increases fragility. The pandemic-era monetary expansion merely accelerated a trajectory already in motion, normalizing levels of creation once reserved for war.

From a Rothbardian perspective, such a system cannot be reformed. Monopoly over money inevitably produces abuse, not because individuals are uniquely corrupt, but because unchecked discretion always is. The problem is not mismanagement; it is structural. Fiat money—insulated from competition and constraint—transforms money from a medium of exchange into an instrument of hierarchy.

A free society cannot rest on a monetary foundation that requires ignorance to function. Constraint is not the enemy of prosperity; it is its precondition. Without it, prices lie, capital misallocates, and responsibility dissolves. Fiat money does not merely finance power. It becomes power. And when money itself is corrupted, everything built upon it follows.

The ultimate question, then, is not how to manage fiat money more skillfully, but whether liberty can coexist with a monetary order insulated from consent, competition, and consequence. History suggests it cannot.

There are reports that during the Trump-ordered military raid on Venezuela to oust and capture President Nicolás Maduro, at least one US helicopter was hit by surface fire or possibly small missile, but the chopper managed to keep flying – with the pilot wounded – and the damaged aircraft made it back from the mission safely.

But this raised the question: what happened to Venezuela’s Russian-supplied anti-air defenses, including S-300 and Buk-M2 surface-to-air missile systems purchased in 2009?

While at this point it is well understood that the US military and CIA had help from inside the Venezuelan government – making it essentially a US-backed coup topped off with a special forces nab and grab against Maduro and his wife, there’s still the question of whether the entire Venezuelan armed forces were ordered to stand down, or else that their defense systems simply didn’t work or were inactive.

The New York Times says it was actually more the latter scenario – Russian-built air defense systems stationed in Venezuela were mostly inoperable and did not react to the major initial US strikes which paved the way for the ground operation in Caracas.

When American military aircraft entered Venezuelan airspace on Jan. 3, the missile systems were not even linked to radar, according to US officials privy to the mission to The New York Times.

The publication further explained the systems were not integrated with one another and may have actually been unusable for several years. Satellite imagery and photographs further suggest that critical elements of the air defense systems were being kept in storage rather than deployed.

Interestingly the Ukraine war has played a role, after early in the conflict US defense officials said they would support and supply the Zelensky government in order to ‘weaken’ Russia by bogging it down in a proxy war.

US officials explained to the Times that Venezuela (and presumably other Russian defense allies) has faced ongoing difficulties maintaining its Russian-made air defenses because of limited access to Russian technicians and spare parts – all of which have had to be diverted to support Russia’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine.

Much of the initial US strikes appeared to focus on areas where Buk missile systems had been positioned or stored, and locations close to the capital.

“The Venezuelan armed forces were practically unprepared for the U.S. attack,” Yaser Trujillo, a military analyst in Venezuela, told The New York Times.

“Their troops were not dispersed, the detection radar was not activated, deployed or operational. It was a chain of errors that allowed the United States to operate with ease, facing a very low threat from the Venezuelan air defense system,” Trujillo added.

And a separate source concludes: 

Venezuela’s much-touted antiaircraft systems were essentially not connected when U.S. forces entered the skies over Venezuela’s capital, and they may not have been working for years, former officials and analysts said.

“After years of corruption, poor logistics and sanctions, all those things would have certainly degraded the readiness of Venezuela’s air defense systems,” said Richard de la Torre, a former C.I.A. station chief in Venezuela who now runs Tower Strategy, a Washington-based lobbying firm.

The below OSINT account predicted this outcome back in mid-November:

For some context to those who haven’t been following for a while.
This is Venezuelas S-300 system and its storage at Captain Manuel Rios airbase in Guarico.
The missiles for the unit are stored just 100m away from the vehicles in a hangar.#Venezuela https://t.co/ka06CDPnVt pic.twitter.com/PqlCOZurqS

— CNW (@ConflictsW) November 15, 2025

The report throws open another interesting possibility, with two former US officials stating their view that Moscow may have permitted the systems it sold to Venezuela to fall into disrepair in order to avoid escalating tensions with Washington.

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Melissa Martin, a veteran Texas educator with some 30 years of experience, was thrilled when the state passed a law in 2025 that required the state’s 9,000 public schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

For Martin, it was a bright spot—a swing back toward classical education rooted in Western civilization in an otherwise liberal teaching environment.

Her excitement quickly turned to disappointment at the Houston-based public charter school in which she works.

“I was real surprised when they didn’t jump at putting the Ten Commandments up,” she told The Epoch Times.

​Texas’ Senate Bill 10 has sparked the nation’s largest state-led effort to put the Ten Commandments into schools—and it is facing concerted legal challenges. A hearing on the constitutionality of the new law is scheduled before the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this month.

The Ten Commandments, fundamental to both Judaism and Christianity, are credited with influencing Western values and are the basis for laws against killing, theft, adultery, and perjury.

Martin believes public schools have ignored the significance of foundational works such as the Ten Commandments and their role in preserving “our democratic Republic for future generations.”

She said she is retiring this month, fed up in general with a public education system that she feels has failed students.

As a board member of Innovative Teachers of Texas, an alternative to liberal teacher unions, Martin hopes to spend her time establishing a Christian classical school.

Christopher Rhoades, a minister and math teacher in the Alvin Independent School District south of Houston, told The Epoch Times he believes the law is a positive change but worries it could open Pandora’s box.

“I mean, it definitely returns us to a point of values,” he said. “You know, my concern is always with whatever precedent is set. What does it open the door to that I wouldn’t like if someone else was in power?”

The law says public schools “shall display” a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments in a conspicuous place in each classroom. Schools must accept donated posters that meet the law’s specifications but aren’t required to purchase them.

Critics of the law argue that requiring the Ten Commandments to be hung in every classroom violates the separation of church and state and offers little educational value.

Teacher Rachael Preston testified against the bill in Austin last spring.

“I’m curious about how displaying the Ten Commandments … is relevant enough to the teaching of mathematics to be displayed in a math room,” she told state lawmakers.

Sarah Morrison, who taught in public school for 15 years before becoming a math instructor at Paris Junior College, told The Epoch Times via text that she believes the law is unconstitutional.

“As both a Christian and an educator, I believe that requiring the Ten Commandments goes against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and treats Christian faith as the state’s preferred religion instead of recognizing the diversity I see in my classroom every day,” she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Texas chapter quickly challenged the law by filing two lawsuits. Two federal district judges blocked the 25 school districts named in the lawsuits from displaying the posters.

The civil rights organizations filed a third lawsuit in December 2025. This time, the federal class-action lawsuit names another 16 districts and seeks to block all Texas school districts from displaying the Ten Commandments.

Legal observers believe the issue will likely end up before the Supreme Court.

A case related to a similar Louisiana law and one of the Texas cases are scheduled to be heard by the full Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 20, according to the ACLU.

Wider Efforts

The Texas law is part of a larger state effort that has focused on putting God back into schools—a move grassroots conservatives in the red state applaud.

Texas passed a law in 2021 requiring public schools to display the national motto, “In God We Trust.” In late 2024, the Texas State Board of Education approved the “Bluebonnet Learning” curriculum, which integrates Bible stories and Christian values into K-5 language arts lessons.

In the town of Rockwall, just east of Dallas, attorney Lorne Liechty and his family purchased Ten Commandments posters for their local school district, which serves some 19,000 students. The posters were hung in classrooms before the ACLU filed its lawsuit; they now sit in storage as the issue winds its way through the courts.

Liechty, who had two children attend Rockwall schools, said that besides being good rules to live by, the Ten Commandments are foundational to America and its history.

Liechty, also a Rockwall County Commissioner, said prayer was allowed in school until the early 1960s; and he vividly recalls when his third-grade teacher told him it was outlawed.

“The Ten Commandments, Bible verses, and prayer were taken out of the schools,” he told The Epoch Times. “So I had a chance to try and restore them. I wanted to do that.”

Lawsuits Either Way

The Ten Commandments controversy has left some Texas schools in a quandary.

School districts outside Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio were named in the lawsuits and have been forced to remove Ten Commandments posters.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued school districts in Galveston, Leander, and Round Rock for failing to display donated posters.

“America is a Christian nation, and it is imperative that we display the very values and timeless truths that have historically guided the success of our country,” Paxton said in a news release.

North of Houston, Shepherd Independent School District, which serves about 2,000 students, didn’t need an extra push to post the Ten Commandments.

Rebecca Nix, an administrator with Shepherd schools and a former teacher, said the posters have sparked classroom discussions.

“It’s been good fodder for conversation in some of the high school English classes,” she told The Epoch Times.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,

Young people who used to identify as transgender have filed dozens of lawsuits in the past few years, but have yet to win a verdict in their favor.

They are known as “detransitioners,” those who regret changing their gender identity, often after making irreversible changes to their bodies via medication and surgery on the advice of medical professionals.

This year, several cases that have survived dismissal and arbitration, are making their way into courtrooms across the country.

​These cases face obstacles, including statutes of limitations, caps on medical malpractice awards, and huge legal bills for cases that can drag on for years.

​One case in New York, scheduled to go to trial this week, involves a then 16-year-old girl who thought she was a male and underwent a double mastectomy in December 2019, according to court documents. She has since detransitioned.

The case, Fox Varian vs. Kenneth Einhorn et. al, was filed in the Westchester County Supreme Court in 2023 against the teenager’s therapist and doctor and the medical facilities involved.

​The significance of the lawsuit is apparent to attorneys at Fiedler Deutsch, an experienced New York law firm representing the detransitioner in the medical malpractice suit.

​It “may be the first case of its kind in the nation to go to trial,” the firm’s website noted in an April 2025 post titled: “Understanding Detransition Cases: Legal Recourse for Minors Impacted by Gender-Affirming Care.”

​Medical professionals involved in the case are accused of negligence and causing pain, suffering, and mental anguish “of a permanent nature” to the plaintiff, formerly known as Isabella Basile, according to court documents.

​Defendants allegedly failed to inform the teen of “the risks, hazards, and alternatives” involved in the medical procedures she underwent, according to the lawsuit.

​Defendants have denied any wrongdoing, saying in court documents that at the time of surgery, “the plaintiff still identified as a male, was happy without breasts, and did not regret her decision.”

​Neither the defendant’s nor the plaintiff’s lawyers wished to comment on the case when contacted by The Epoch Times.

Detransition advocates meet outside the annual Pediatric Endocrine Society conference held in San Diego on May 6, 2023. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

​Nick Whitney, now a partner with Childers Law in Florida, knows first hand what it takes to win a major medical malpractice case.

He was a trial attorney representing a family in a “medical kidnapping” case against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The case was made famous by Netflix’s 2023 documentary “Take Care of Maya” and resulted in an initial $261 million verdict against the defendants—the largest in the state’s history.

​Whitney told The Epoch Times via email that a victory in the New York detransitioning case would shock the medical establishment.

​“The hospitals and doctors will act like ants running around in a sugar bowl if one of these brave plaintiffs prevails,” Whitney predicted.

​A win would potentially change the way pediatric gender dysphoria is treated in the United States, he said.

​“The more immediate and substantial effect will be a forced reckoning—the doctors and hospitals will have to adjust their risk-calculus and decide if their legal exposure still justifies them victimizing children and adolescents,” he said.

​Jonathan Hullihan, general counsel of Remnant Law Firm in The Woodlands, Texas, who defended doctors over standard-of-care issues that arose over ivermectin prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, said a win in the New York case could be a game-changer in states with more generous statute of limitations deadlines.

​Despite the dramatic increase in transition procedures and surgeries on minors, detransition lawsuits face significant hurdles, he said.

​For example, the Themis Resource Fund lists 23 detransitioner cases, with most filed between 2022 and 2024. However, many have been dismissed, settled, or are pending.

​Tort reforms, such as damage caps and statutes of limitations, are major roadblocks, Hullihan said. The cost of securing medical experts to evaluate deviations from the standard of care can exceed $50,000.

“These reforms in place often obstruct valid claims and insulate providers from accountability, particularly when regret from often irreversible surgery manifests years later,” Hullihan told The Epoch Times.

People gather to share about detransitioning in front of the California State Capitol building in Sacramento, Calif., on March 10, 2023. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

​Besides the New York case, two other detransitioner cases are expected to go to trial this year.

​Those include the high-profile California case brought by Chloe Cole against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, doctors, therapists, and others.

​Cole is an outspoken detransitioner and critic of medically transitioning gender dysphoric children. She sued Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and others after surgeons removed both her breasts when she was 15.

​Her case, filed by the Dhillon Law Group, LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and the Center for American Liberty, is headed toward trial after California’s Third Appellate District ruled this fall that the case did not have to go to arbitration.

​The lawsuit claims defendants “engaged in fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious conduct by giving her incorrect/false information about suicide risk and by reinforcing her erroneous belief that gender transition services would resolve her mental health issues.”

​Doctors intervened medically, failing to address her mental health and autism-like symptoms beforehand, she told The Epoch Times in a recent interview.

Cole began identifying as a boy during adolescence and sought physical changes to match. She was prescribed puberty blockers and testosterone at age 13. Ultimately, surgeons performed a double mastectomy.

​Cole said she expects to get a trial date this year or next.

​“I also am really looking forward to being able to expose the things that Kaiser has done, not only to me, but to thousands of children in California and across the United States,” she said.

​“My biggest concern is making my case a precedent, showing other children, other families, that they can seek justice.”

​Kaiser has denied wrongdoing and sought dismissal of the lawsuit. The foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Detransitioner and children’s rights advocate Chloe Cole in Phoenix, Ariz., at Turning Point USA’s AmFest conference on Dec. 20, 2025. Lei Chen/The Epoch Times

Another upcoming trial is the Nebraska case of Luka Hein, which names the University of Nebraska Medical Center Physicians, Nebraska Medical Center, doctors, therapists, and others as defendants.

​The Hein case, filed in 2023 by attorneys from the Thomas More Society, the Center for American Liberty, and Nebraska malpractice attorney Jeff Downing, is scheduled for trial in August. It must first survive summary judgment motions during a Feb. 4 hearing.

​Hein had both breasts surgically removed in 2018, when she was 16, as the first step in her “gender affirming care” provided by doctors at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, according to the lawsuit.

​The lawsuit alleges her doctors and the medical center were negligent and violated Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act—accusations which the defendants deny.

​“I was going through the darkest and most chaotic time in my life, and instead of being given the help I needed, these doctors affirmed that chaos into reality,” Hein said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed. “I was talked into medical intervention that I could not fully understand the long-term impacts and consequences of.”

​Hein attended a “gender care clinic” operated by the medical center faculty. While there, University of Nebraska Medical Center staff did not question Hein’s self-diagnosis of transgender identification, according to the lawsuit.

​“By immediately affirming Luka, defendants developed a type of transgender tunnel vision that blocked out the other factors that were or may have been the cause or causes of Luka’s dysphoria,” the lawsuit alleges.

University of Nebraska Medical Center faculty use the “gender affirming” model, the lawsuit says. They “affirm” the patient’s chosen gender and then approve medical procedures based on the “Dutch Protocol,” which calls for puberty blockers, and gender-related hormones and surgery, according to the lawsuit.

Detransitioner Luka Hein speaks at the California State Capitol building in Sacramento, Calif., on March 28, 2023. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

​That protocol model was based on weak evidence that transgender patients benefited from medical interventions, according to the complaint.

This spring, the Department of Health and Human Services released a 409-page review of medical procedures used for gender dysphoric children. The report advocates for psychotherapy as a “noninvasive alternative to endocrine and surgical interventions,” since the benefits of hormones or surgery have not been established.

Likewise, European countries have moved away from medical intervention following the 2024 release in the UK of the Cass report, which resulted in a shift away from the “gender affirmation” model for children.

Doctors have a responsibility to rule out other potential causes of a patient’s distress before turning to irreversible procedures such as a double mastectomy or hysterectomy, the Hein lawsuit said.

​In marketing their services, the lawsuit said the defendants used descriptions such as “masculinizing hormone therapy” to describe medical interventions for gender dysphoria.

​These innocuous-sounding procedure descriptions marketed by the defendants are deceptive because they are not therapy, according to the lawsuit.

​“In fact, they are the opposite. Rather than healing, these procedures inflict harm that causes malfunctioning and malformation of the teenage body and brain,” it alleges.

​An attorney for the defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment when contacted by The Epoch Times.

The NY Times had called it a warning delivered to Europe at Mach 10: “The message came screaming through the skies at 8,000 miles per hour. Early Friday morning, for just the second time since its all-out invasion of Ukraine, Russia fired a nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile — a hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic weapon that until recently was banned under international treaty,” the publication wrote.

The Ukrainian side, along with some evidence available from circulating videos, pointed to a hypersonic projectile having been used against the far western Ukrainian city of Lviv, but the question of just what the Russians were targeting with such an advanced and devastating weapon remained an open one.

Russian state media and the military have officially disclosed the apparent target, however, and it reveals something about what type of targets Moscow is prioritizing, now nearly four years into the grinding ‘special military operation’ which it should be noted President Putin has still refrained from calling a full state of war.

RT has featured a fresh Monday defense ministry statement indicting Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile system destroyed a Ukrainian aviation plant in Lviv. The military-purposed plant was repairing and servicing warplanes, as well as producing long-range drones, but has been effectively disabled.

“In a statement on Monday, the ministry said, citing several independent sources, that the attack successfully hit a facility which supported the operations of Ukrainian Soviet-era warplanes, including MiG-29 jets, as well as Western-supplied F-16s,” RT writes.

These long- and medium-range drones have wreaked havoc on Russian oil and energy production, and the last many months have seen them strike targets deep inside Russia with great effectiveness.

Russia’s military is now going after production centers, and especially ones that might be tied to Western and NATO supporters of the Zelensky government.

The plant made drones “used for strikes against Russian civilian targets deep inside the territory of the Russian Federation.”

“The ministry added that the strike hit production workshops, storage facilities holding finished drones, and infrastructure at the plant’s airfield,” the RT report adds.

“Officials also noted that the same attack involving Iskander and Kalibr missiles struck drone production facilities in Kiev,” it continues.

Russia fires Oreshnik hypersonic missile at Lviv, first confirmed strike in western Ukraine

Mayor confirms 6 explosions targeting infrastructure near Poland 🅱️order

Hypersonic IRBM traveled 1,500km in 7 minutes at Mach 10

No air defense can intercept this weapon system pic.twitter.com/wZE2X8YFYz

— Boi Agent One (@boiagentone) January 8, 2026

Last year a huge drone production facility supported by the Turks was reportedly hit by a large Russian aerial attack and was severely damaged by the resulting fire. Russia appears to be taking its time, slowly and systematically obliterating Ukraine’s infrastructure.

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Journalist Alex Newman, author of the popular book “Deep State” (which is soon to be massively updated and re-released), thinks evil powers trying to overthrow America are distraught because their money and plans are drying up. 

Newman says, “I think the globalist Deep State is in panic mode, and I think the Left is as well…”

“The operation against Maduro sent a massive shock wave through the global Left.  

I see the global Left as a tentacle of the global Deep State.  It runs right through Venezuela, and it runs right through Minneapolis. 

Let’s not forget what happened in 2020. . .. The so-called uprising was organized by Rockefeller front groups, and these are paid professional revolutionaries.  

Yes, they are useful idiots . . . but they have huge money at their disposal.”

In late November, Newman warned “Leftist Marxists Preparing Now to Take Over America.”  Then, Venezuela President Nicholus Maduro was arrested, and that threw a cold bucket of water on those plans.  Newman points out,

“Venezuela was the cash cow that was funding this entire subversive movement through drugs and oil. 

Donald Trump, in one fell swoop, took out that massive piece of their architecture, and they are pooping bricks. 

They are absolutely terrified about what may come next.”

We already know the payments in the so-called Somali welfare fraud have been cut off by the federal government.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is also cutting off billions of dollars of more fraud by changing money transfer rules.  On top of that, Newman says Trump has given a huge blow to the globalist UN climate treaty that also is cutting off big money.  Newman says, 

“The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), this is the foundation of the UN climate regime and Donald Trump just utterly obliterated it.  This is some of the best news we have heard in a very long time.  The UN is very mad, and their chief spokesman is saying the US has a legal obligation to keep paying them.” 

That is not going to happen, which means more cash cut from evil people trying to destroy America.  Newman adds,

“This is just the beginning, and they have done a yearlong review of UN agencies that are useless, anti-American and wasteful.  The first 66 just dropped, and we expect more.  This is Earth shattering news.  This is huge news and really significant.”

The other really significant thing about Venezuela is the voter fraud that has rigged elections in the Western hemisphere for many years.  Newman says, “In Caracas, with Cuban help, they created lots of tools to steal elections…”

“ It was not just in Latin America but here in the United States.  There are a lot of people in the Trump Administration who know about this.  I think this was one of the big things on Trump’s mind when he started thinking about what do we do with Venezuela?  We have had multiple whistleblowers come out and confirm almost all of this involvement in voter fraud. 

The big take away here is . . . they created software to rig and steal elections in Latin America and here in the United States, and the Trump Administration knows about it.”

There is much more in the 60-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with hard-hitting journalist Alex Newman, founder of LibertySentinel.org, where he talks about the increasing violence by the globalist Deep State to take down America and why they are prepping for civil war now.  Newman is also the author of the newly released book “Woke and Weaponized.”  This is a stark warning for all parents about the communist plan to control and brainwash the next generation in our public schools for 1.10.26.